1920-06-07

PAPERS TABLED.

[Stage Direction]
Orders in Council covering the cost of living bonus for employees of the Civil Service for the year, 1920-21.-(Hon. N. W. Rowell.

Orders in Council in connection with the Federal Housing Scheme relating to the housing projects of the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec and Saskatchewan.-Hon. N. W. Rowell.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I am sorry that the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) is not in his place, as I sent him a copy of a telegram which I received this morning, hut probably the Prime Minister can give me some information in regard to it. This is the telegram:
Ascertain if the Fisheries Treaty will be submitted to Parliament for ratification present session and when.
I understand that some people propose to become interested in our Nova Scotia Fishery enterprises, and they are anxious to ascertain what is in the Treaty before taking action.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: The Treaty has not yet reached us from Washington since its signature. As soon as we receive it early consideration will be given to what my hon. friend has advanced, the importance of which I quite realize.



THE WEST INDIES CONFERENCE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: Might I ask the Government how long the West Indies Conference will sit, and if a full report of its proceedings will be given to the House before the end of the present session?
Rt, Hon. ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister) : The conference expects to get through its work during the present week, I understand. The usual information as to the conference will, of course, be presented to Parliament, and if the conference reaches any definite conclusions these will if necessary be submitted by way of proposals to amend existing legislation dealing with our ootmmercial relations with the British West Indies and the other colonies concerned.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Second reading of Bill No. 154 (from the iSenate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of Albert Ernest Bulley."-Mr. Fripp.
201*
Second reading of Bill No. 155 (from the Senate), intituled: "An Act for the relief of Beatrice Booth Gendron."-Mr. Fripp,

Mr. BOYER:: 1.	What are the names of the companies who made munitions during the war?
2.	Where were they located?
3.	Which are those who made munitions for the Canadian Government, and those who made munitions for foreign governments, and the names of these governments?
4.	What are the names of the companies still existing, specifying those in operation, and those not in operation?
5.	What are the names of the manufacturers of all kinds of explosives in the country and the places where they are located?
6.	Which are those actually in operation?
7.	Can those companies manufacture on a permit from this Government, or if, generally, it is left to provincial legislatures to grant these permits?


Mr. COWAN:: What amounts have been paid to the following newspapers during the fiscal years 1919 and 1920 respectively for (a) advertising, (b) printing:	Montreal Gazette and The Gazette
Printing Company, Montreal Daily Star, The Globe, Toronto, The Mail and Empire, Toronto, The Telegram, Toronto, The Star, Toronto, The Journal and the Journal Press, Ottawa, The Citizen, Ottawa?



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. N. W. Rowell (President of the Privy Council), Bill No. 53, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, and the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1919, was read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Mr. Tolmie (Minister of Agriculture) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to regulate the sale and inspection of commercial feeding stuffs, bran, shorts, middlings and chopped feeds, and to provide,-
1,	That in the following resolutions, unless the context otherwise requires,-
"Commercial feeding stuff" means any article offered for sale for the feeding of livestock and poultry, including feeds stated to possess medicinal as well as nutritive properties, but not including, (a) hay and straw; (b) whole grains of wheat, rye, barley, oats, corn, buckwheat or flax seed; (c) chop feeds; (d) bran, shorts or middlings when unmixed with other materials; (e) wet brewers' grains, roots cr other materials containing sixty per centum or more of water ;
"Chop feed" means the mixed or unmixed meals made directly from and consisting of the
[Stage Direction]
entire clean grains of wheat, rye, barley, oats, Indian corn, buckwheat and flax seed;
"Feeding stuff" means any commercial feeding stuff, bran, shorts or middlings and chop feed ;
"Minister" means the Minister of Agriculture.
2.	(1) That every sack, bag, bin, or other container of commercial feeding stuffs sold or offered, exposed or held for sale, shall have affixed thereto a tag or label in a conspicuous place on the outside thereof, containing a legible and plainly printed statement of, (a) the ijame, brand or trade mark of the contents; (b) the full name and address of the manufacturer;
(c)	the specific name of every ingredient contained in the feed; (d) the registered number; (e) the analysis as guaranteed by the manufacturer which shall show the percentage content of protein, fat and fibre.
(2) That in the case of car lots in bulk, the provisions of this resolution shall be held to be fulfilled if the statement required therein is attached to the invoice or bill of lading delivered to the purchaser.
3.	That no make of commercial feeding stuff shall be imported into, distributed, sold or held for sale in Canada unless it has been registered with the Minister of Agriculture and a registration number assigned to it. Application for registration must be made by the manufacturer and must be accompanied by a registration fee of two dollars, a sealed representative sample of at least one pound of such feeding stuff, and a statement of the contents of such feeding stuff in such form and containing such details as the minister by regulation may prescribe. The registration shall be for a period continuing until the first day of October following the date upon which it is granted, but such registration may be renewed from year to year. The conditions for renewal shall be the same as those for the original registration.
4.	(a) That the minister may refuse to register any commercial feeding stuff under a name or brand which in the opinion of the minister, would tend to mislead or deceive with respect to tire materials of which it is composed, or when the statement of the contents is in the opinion of the minister incomplete or misleading. The minister may also refuse to register more than one commercial feeding stuff under the same name or brand.
(b)	That the minister shall have power to cancel any registration which in his opinion has been made in violation of any of the provisions of the proposed Act or of any regulation.
(c)	That no change in the composition of a registered brand of commercial feeding stuff shall be made without re-registering it.
5.	That every sack, bag, bin or other container of chop feed made from and consisting of more than one kind of clean grain, when sold or offered, exposed or held for sale, shall have affixed thereto a tag or label in a conspicuous place on the outside thereof, containing a legible and plainly printed statement of the ingredients contained in the mixture and the percentage by weight of every ingredient.
6.	That every lot of bran, shorts or middlings sold or offered, exposed or held for sale must meet the requirements as to quality and chemical contents established for them respectively by regulations under the proposed Act, or be registered and sold as commercial feeding stuffs as required by the foregoing resolutions numbered 2 and 3.
7.	That no grain, screenings or any other ingredient -which contains in excess of the quan-
[Mir. Tolmie.]
tity allowed by regulation, any seeds, damaged grain or other material designated by regulation of the minister as injurious to the health of livestock or poultry, shall be used as a constituent of any feeding stuffs.
8.	That no feeding stuff shall be sold, or offered, exposed or held for sale, which contains any vital weed seeds in excess of the quantity allowed by regulation.
9.	That if any make of feeding stuff imported into Canada be found to be adulterated or incorrectly or misleadingly labelled or named, or if in any way its sale constitutes an infraction of the proposed Aot, its further importation may be forbidden by the minister.
10.	That any purchaser of feeding stuff may have an analysis made thereof by an official analyst, and the certificate of analysis shall be accepted as evidence in any prosecution, and the minister may publish the result of the analysis or other examination of feeding stuff.
11.	That any officer or person charged with the enforcement of this proposed Aot shall have access to any elevator, warehouse or other premises where grains or other constituents of feeding stuffs are blended, or supposed to be blended, for the manufacture of feeding stuffs, and any premises or receptacles containing or supposed to contain feeding stuff, wherever they may be located, and may take any samples from any receptacle on payment of the value of such samples.
12.	That the minister shall have power,-
(a)	To appoint an advisory board which may at his request define for his guidance and recommend regulations that may be established under the proposed Act;
(b)	To make regulations prescribing the maximum amount of whole or ground weed seeds and other substances which may be allowed in any grain or other ingredients used for the manufacture of feeding stuffs, without affecting the right to describe it as clean within the meaning of the proposed Act;
(c)	To make regulations establishing a standard of quality and contents for, and fixing the limits of variability permissible in any feeding stuff or ingredient or constituent thereof;
(d)	To designate the kind of damaged grain, seeds or other material which shall be considered as injurious to the health of livestock or poultry within the meaning of the proposed Act
(e) To make regulations	prescribing the size, colour and character of the labels to be used for the purposes of the proposed Act, and the size and kind of printing to be used for any particulars required to be printed on such labels;
(f) To make regulations prescribing how samples of feeding stuffs are to be taken and analysed; and
(g)	to make regulations for any other purpose deemed by him to ibe necessary for the carrying out of the provisions of the proposed Act.
3. That any person accused of selling, offering, exposing or having in his possession for sale any feeding stuff which does not comply with the requirements of the proposed Act or of any 'regulations thereunder, who proves that the feeding stuff respecting which action was taken was bought by him directly from a manufacturer or merchant domiciled in Canada, that it was neither opened nor the state of the feed altered while it was in his possession, and that he had no reason to believe that the said feed-

ing stuff did not comply with the provisions of this proposed Act, shall upon disclosing the name and address of the person from whom the feeding stuff was purchased, the place purchased and the date of the sale, be liable only for the cost of the prosecution; and that every magistrate who has disposed of any such case shall within one month from the date of his judgment therein send to the minister a report . of the case giving the name and address of the person who sold the feeding stuff to the accused, and the date and place of the sale; and any prosecution against any person pursuant to the report made to the minister under the foregoing provision may be commenced within six months from the date of such report and not later.
14.	That except as provided in the preceding resolution a penalty for violation of these provisions not exceeding $100 for a first offence, and of not less than $100 and not exceeding $200 for a second offence, and for each subsequent offence of not less than $200 and not exceeding $500, together with the costs of prosecution, be enacted, and in default of immediate payment of such fine and costs, imprisonment for a - term not exceeding twelve months unless such fine and costs are sooner paid, and the feeding stuff shall be liable to forfeiture to His Majesty.
15.	That the penalty for obstructing any officer or person charged with the enforcement of the proposed Act, when entering any premises to make any examination of any feeding stuff, or refusing to permit the making of such examination or the taking of samples, shall be a fine of not less than $25 and not more than $500, or imprisonment for any term not exceeding twelve months.
16.	That the penalty for forging or unlawfully using any manufacturer's registration number or any certificate of analysis or other examination hereunder shall be a fine not exceeding $200 for the first offence and not less than $200 and not exceeding $500 for each subsequent offence, or imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or both fine and imprisonment.
17.	That this proposed Act shall not apply to feeding stuff sold to a manufacturer for the purpose of cleaning or mixing, or to feeding
' stuff manufactured for any person from his own materials and for his own use.
18.	That in any complaint, information or conviction hereunder, the matter complained of may be declared, and shall be held to have arisen, within the meaning of Part XV of the Criminal Code, at the place where the feeding stuff was sold, or offered, exposed or had in possession for sale.
19.	That the Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act, 1909, be repealed, and that the proposed Act shall come into operation on such date as may be prescribed by proclamation issued by the Governor in Council.
Mr. TOLMIE:: In connection with this resolution I purpose asking the House for leave to introduce a Bill to Regulate the Sale and Inspection of Commercial Feeding Stuffs, Bran, Shorts, Middlings and Chopped Feeds. It is proposed that this shall be a substitute for the Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act of 1909, which will be repealed. It will also replace Bill No. 32, introduced by the Minister of Health (Hon.
Mr. Rowell) and will include amendments to the Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act. It is proposed to turn over the operation of this Act to the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. BUREAU:: Does Bill 32 deal with honey?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: No.	|	;


Jacques Bureau: What is the purport of Bill 32?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It had reference to commercial feeding stuffs, and was introduced by the Minister of Health. It is now withdrawn and this Bill is substituted for it. Previously, the Commercial Feeding Stuffs Act was administered by the Department of Inland Revenue and now by the Department of Health. All hon. members will, I think, agree that as these feeding stuffs are being used in the feeding of livestock and as the Department of Agriculture is being constantly brought into contact with questions regarding feed, it is only proper and right that the latter department should administer this legislation in the future. Moreover, we already have, in connection with the seed branch, a trained staff that has been rendering valuable service in the inspection of seeds, and this staff can be used largely in the administration of the proposed measure.
The objects of the Bill are to secure a more efficient control of feeding stuffs and also to assure the purchaser that he is getting what he is paying for, so that he can purchase this material at a price that he considers reasonable and fair. For a number of years Canada has been the dumping ground of feeds from other countries, these feeds being adulterated with ground peanut shells, ground coooanut shells and so forth. Under the proposed Bill, we shall have control of this. There have also been put on the market certain fake feeds, feeds not possessing any real value as feeds. These fake feeds are widely advertised by highly coloured advertising matter and they have been used to fool the Canadian cow and also the cow owner. Other feeds ,jhave shown a satisfactory chemical analysis, but they have proved unpalatable owing to the nature of the weed seeds contained therein. In other cases feeds have been found to contain black seeds from screenings, these black seeds being absolutely injurious and, in some cases, poisonous to livestock, particularly so to young hogs, and in some districts very serious losses have occurred from this cause. From experiments carried on at our experimental farms these black seeds

have been found to be absolutely useless as regards feeding value, in addition to being poisonous under certain conditions.
In addition to inspecting these feeds at the point of sale and distribution, as was carried on under the old Feeding Stuffs Act, we purpose, under this new measure, to inspect the feeds where they are congregated and mixed, so that we shall have an inspection at each end. Further than that, analyses will be made as to the chemical contents of the feeds and a careful physical examination will also be made.
It is proposed, for the working out of this legislation,, to classify these feeds into commercial feeding stuffs which will include any article offered for sale for the feeding of livestock, including particularly feeds stated to possess medicinal as well as nutritive properties, but not including hay, straw, whole grain, chop feeds; bran, shorts, or middlings when unmixed with other materials; wet brewers' grains, roots or other materials containing 60 percentum or more of water.
"Chop feed," which is another classification, will be composed of mixed or unmixed meals made directly from and consisting of the entire clean grains of wheat, rye, barley, oats, Indian corn, buckwheat and flaxseed, which may be used separately or in combination. It is proposed to attach tags to these bags containing chop feed showing clearly what they contain.
Regulations will be necessary for the purpose of giving the minister and the Department of Agriculture a certain amount of elasticity in working out the requirements of this legislation. It is necessary to have these regulations for the purpose of meeting new conditions without delay, in conneciton with certain feeds thax might be more numerous in some years than others, seeds of such a nature as not to be suitable for feeding purposes, also in certain seasons in connection with the handling of damp grain used in these feeds. The power to change these regulations from time to time to meet requirements which may arise will render the Act much more efficient than it otherwise would be.
It will be necessary to register all feeds, whether imported or home grown, and a fee of $2, will be charged for this registration. The minister or the department may refuse to register in any case where the department is of the opinion that it is the intention of the manufacturer to mislead the purchaser, and registration may be cancelled at any time if a man is caught violating any of the requirements of this legisfMr. Tolmie.]
lation. Moreover, no change in combination can be made without re-registration.
Many difficulties have arisen in the past through purchasers of feeds having to use certain feeds for feeding dairy cattle, hogs and other animals, with having proper knowledge of what those feeds contain. A great deal of deleterious material has been used and sold as good feed when it possesses almost no feeding value whatever. In this way the progressive dairyman has been under a great difficulty; he has been unable to balance properly his ration for his dairy cows, and he has been thus prevented from obtaining the best results. Under the old conditions, in selecting certain rations for growing stock, which rations are somewhat different from those which might be required for the production of beef or pork, he has been unable to balance a ration for the purpose required.
Some articles that have been used in the composition of these feeds have been found to have a very bad effect. This is the case where fish meat is used in preparing food for hogs, because, as hon. members are arwaire, fish that has not been properly deodorized gives a fishy taste to pork and makes it unfit for food.
This resolution has been presented to the Committee on Agriculture by whom it has been very earefuly studied and adopted.
It is proposed to eliminate the last eight words in section 5:
And the percentage by weight of every ingredient.
Because it would be impossible to obtain by weight the exact quantity of any particular grain. Many farmers nowadays are growing grains in combination for feed purposes because a larger yield is obtained in that way, and in a ease where a man brought in a certain quantity of feed consisting of peas, oats, wheat and barley it would be practically impossible to say how much of each particular grain was contained therein. I hope this resolution will be adopted by the committee and that I shall be allowed to introduce a Bill along these lines.


Mr. ROBB:: I have no criticism to make in connection with the resolution as printed, and I am very much in sympathy with the idea of transferring the matter to the Department of Agriculture. When I rose first, it was my intention to point out to the minister the amendment that he has just suggested, that it is not workable that percentages of whole grain should be placed on the tags. That would lead

only to confusion and irregularities. The minister may be adding additional expense to the purchaser of chop feed by compelling the man to place tags upon all bags of chop feed, and some simpler and cheaper way of getting over this might be devised. My experience is that large handlers of chop feed in many cases send out their own bags to the mill and have them filled. They buy this feed on sample and in most cases they are quite satisfied. I am not sure that there is any great demand amongst feeders throughout the country for tags on chop feed from whole grains, and in this connection I am speaking of whole grain only. That is the only comment I have to make upon that feature of the resolution.
I should like to draw the attention of the minister to clause 17 which reads:
That this proposed Act shall not apply to feeding stuff sold to a manufacturer for the purpose of cleaning or mixing.
That particular clause will allow western elevators to sell, as they have been selling, all kinds of rubbish and weed seeds and escape the penalty. I should like the minister to say whether my understanding of the clause is correct.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The tags referred to by
the horn, gentleman will not involve a great deal of cost and they will afford the purchaser a good deal of valuable information as to the exact contents of the feed. When the stuff is sold in loose lots not contained in sacks all that will be necessary will be to place the label on the bin, indicating the exact contents so that the farmer may be fully apprised of the nature of his purchase. Clause 17 permits any farmer to purchase 'a carload of these feedstuffs and have it ground under his own supervision, and he knows exactly wihat he is getting under those conditions.


James Alexander Robb: But the miller is also permitted to grind the stuff.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: The miller will be caught by our inspectors the moment he offers the stuff for sale. In many cases we purpose to have inspectors on the ground visiting the mills from time to time to supervise the mixing ;and preparation of feed, both at the point of origin and at the point of distribution.


James Alexander Robb: That is quite correct. But
why are you going to penalize the miller for buying and grinding these noxious weeds when you do not penalize the elevator man who first sells them?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: He sells to the miller, but we do not step in until the miller proposes to sell the stuff for feed. We make analyses from time to time in order to see that these feeds do not exceed in quantity the limit oif weed seeds, etc.


James Alexander Robb: 
Simon Fraser Tolmie: I think it is desirable
that the miller or the manufacturer, as he might be called, should have the right to purchase these screenings in hulk so that he may dispose of them in any possible way he sees fit so long as he acts in compliance with the law. In accordance with the Bill, he may extract those portions suitable for making feeds; he may take another portion suitable for sheep feeds, or what used to be called some time ago, seed screenings; or he may export those parts of the screenings that are not suitable for feed. He should certainly have these privileges, and as everything will be done under inspection, the moment he tries to make any misrepresentations he is not only liable to penalty but may have his license cancelled.


Mr. WILSON (Saskatoon):: While I appreciate the purpose of the resolution, I think there are same phases of it that will be almost impracticable in actual operation. There is no doubt that there has been a good deal of abuse in foisting upon unsuspecting purchasers feeds that could not, when properly tested, came up to the standard advertised. I notice in clause 2 that every bag or container shall have affixed to it ia tag giving the specific amount of every ingredient contained in the feed. That is to say, if there is 10 per cent of weeds, 25 per cent of oats, etc., you will have to state the diffeient percentages that go to make up the 100 per cent. That is easily enough arrived at. But the last paragraph of the clause says that there must be an analysis, guaranteed by the manufacturer, which shall show the percentage of protein fat and fibre. Now, that is one impracticable feature of the resolution; from the standpoint of one who is some-

what interested in milling and who has had a number of years experience in the business. A large milling company will be able to comply with this requirement, but after all there are only a- few large milling companies in Canada as compared with the number of small mills. To carry out this provision a milling concern would require to have a laboratory and a chemist in order to be able to make the proper test to ascertain the percentage of protein fat of every sack; and I think it will be almost impossible for the small mills in the country to retain a chemist to make a test of every sack of wheat put out. The large mills have their laboratories and chemists and this requirement will not impose any hardship on them; but it seems to me that if you insist on this clause you will drive the feed business from the small concerns!-and after all it is of the greatest benefit to the farmer to he able to obtain feed close to his farm-and place the business in the hands of the large mills. That is one objection which strikes me and I wish the minister would consider this representation.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: With regard to the labelling, the tag oan be placed right on the bag except in the case of commercial feeding stuffs. I understand that these mills do not put up feeding stuffs so much as they turn out bran, shorts and chop feeds, and this section will noit interfere with that work. We have classified these materials as commercial feeding stuffs and chop feeds, two distinct kinds of feed; and I think that if the hon. gentleman wEl read the resolution carefully he will see that this provision refers to commercial feeding stuffs.


Mr. CRERAR:: I commend the purpose
of this Bill, for I think it is necessary to have regulations such as are provided in the measure we are considering. I do not think that the point raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Robb) is well taken. If we survey the history of the sale of screenings, concerning which there has been considerable discussion in the House for the last two or three sessions, we find that until a few years ago almost all of the elevator screenings from the head of the Lakes were marketed in the United States at prices varying in my recollection from $6 to $15 ;a ton. I am speaking of the period up to 1916. Those screenings, of course, were the general run of screenings at the elevators and the mills in

question and were composed of weed seeds of different varieties, broken grains, buckwheat and similar stuff. There was no market in Canada for the reason that we did not have mills or manufacturing plants that were buying this stuff and which, had the necessary machinery to make the separations, but in the United 'States there were large companies that specialized in this class of business, and consequently all these refuse screenings from these elevators and mills found their market in the United States, where they were put through as many as half a dozen separations, the various seeds and grains in the stuff separated and sold independently of each other. L recall quite well that a number of years ago there was a corner of mustard seed in the Minneapolis market, and that corner was largely broken by the mustard seeds extracted from screenings shipped from Canada to Duluth and other points.
The Bill, as I understand it, will throw on the mill or the factory buying these screenings the onus of making these different separations and extracting from the stuff the part that is useful for feeding purposes, and when they have done that they will have to display clearly the ingredients or feeding content of the stuff they are selling. That is not any hardship on the mill or manufacturer who is buying. After all, the essential thing aimed at in this Bill is that the purchaser of feedstuffs, no matter where he is located in this country, shall know what he is buying and shall be protected, as he has a perfect right to be, in that- regard. We have had a very considerable increase in the use of these screenings in Canada since 1917. At that time there was a serious shortage of feed in Canada, and there was .an urgent war need for production, particularly of hogs and cattle. The Government of the day, wisely, I think, put an embargo on the exportation of these *screenings, at the same time compelling the elevators at the head of the Lakes to make the separation that would make them suitable for feeding stuff. That analysis of separation was agreed upon by the officials of the Department of Agriculture, and the Board of Grain Commissioners were entrusted with the responsibility of seeing that the screenings were cleaned up to the standard. At the time the order in question was made the price was fixed for these screenings at $35 a ton that is, for what was termed the recleaned screenings, but at that time so scarce was feed in the United States that they could be sold on the Duluth market for $42 a ton, and the embargo was

put on simply to keep in the country for the use of Canadian farmers what was valuable in this feeding stuff. I think the purpose of the Bill is entirely worthy, although when we come to consider it clause by clause it might be improved in some respects. I wish again to commend the minister for introducing this legislation.


Mr. KAY:: I am in entire sympathy with the purpose of this legislation and I must congratulate the minister on having wrested it from the designs of the President of the Privy Council. I am very much disappointed, however, to find that the minister intends to allow the use of screenings, which my hon. friend the leader of the Progressive party, the hon. member for Marquette, has just been discussing. I am very strongly of the opinion that these screenings should not be allowed to be mixed in any way with commercial feed of any kind. It is well known that the vitality of these noxious weeds cannot be entirely destroyed and the farmers in the East are unconsciously polluting their farms with these very bad weeds to the great detriment of agriculture. It is perhaps true that there is a certain amount of feed value in some of the weeds, but it is also true that some of them are poisonous and have killed many head of young livestock. I would urge upon the minister very seriously the advisability of prohibiting the inclusion of any of these screenings in commercial feeding stuffs. If there is a market in the United States for these screenings, by all means let them be exported to that country. With this one criticism I think the Bill is a very good one, and I trust the minis ter will be successful in passing it. We will be able to consider it more in detail when we are in committee on the Bill.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I am very pleased to find that the Act regulating commercial feeding stuffs will come tender the control of the Department of Agriculture. For many years past this Bill has been, first, under the Department of Inland Revenue, then under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and next under the Department of Health. I think every one will agree, however, that a law of this nature should be under the Department of Agriculture, which has quite a number of well-trained men who are familiar with and competent to deal with questions regarding commercial feeding stuffs. Some hon. members may recollect that at the last session of Parliament we succeeded in putting on the statute books a Bill which endeavoured to regulate some of these feeding stuffs,
particularly bran and shorts. I am a little surprised to find that in the various Bills that have been introduced this session dealing with these matters the legislation of last session has entirely faded away. It has gradually disappeared without anybody taking any particular notice of it, and I believe that to-day it is absolutely destroyed as to its intentions.
I am disappointed in the present Bill. I believe that it will result in a continuance of the conditions that exist at the present time, which enable the mixing of what ought to be pure commercial feeding stuffs with the offal screenings that accumulate at mills and elevators. There is undoubtedly an immense quantity of these screenings accumulating, and a very large proportion of them should be destroyed at those points and never be permitted to pass out of the control of the 'Grain Board. Neglect of this in the past has resulted in untold damage to agriculture in this country.
I was a little surprised at the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in alluding to the conditions that existed in 1917 when an embargo was placed on the exportation of screenings to the United States. I am a little surprised that such an ardent free trader as he is would favour an embargo on anything that we produce in this country, particularly a commodity of this nature. The excuse has been made in Parliament on a number of occasions that very little damage was being done to the farmers of this country by reason of the fact that these screenings were 'being exported to the United States. It is well known that immense quantities were exported to the United States- for many years and were fed at the stock-yards at Minneapolis and many other places to which immense numbers of sheep were shipped from the ranges to be fed in the yards at those points on these screenings. Consequently these noxious weed seeds were not distributed throughout this country. But we have to-day professional mixers of commercial feeding stuffs utilizing these screenings, and there are companies placing stuff on the market to-day that should never be permitted to reach the farms or feeders of live stock of this country. I have no doubt that some of the provisions that will be found in the Bill will take caire of some of these companies. I would be much better satisfied, however if the Bill was a little more clear and definite than this resolution, and did not leave so much to regulations to be made by the minister. I can see no reason why bran and shorts particularly

should be mixed with anything else. I am satisfied that if the Bill embodies the clauses of the resolution as set out here, it will result in its being almost impossible to purchase bran and shorts in their pure state. You will find that this legislation will be used to bolster up other mixtures and enable them to be sold on the market. 1 believe the Bill contemplates the mixing of bran and shorts rather than to ensure their purity. The farmers of this country can do all the mixing, if they desire a mixture.
As far as chop feeds are concerned, those are very easy to regulate. I was somewhat surprised to hear the minister state in answer to the hon. member from Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) that the millers should be in a position to purchase these screenings. It is well known that the standard stock feed to which the hon. member for Marquette alluded was due to the desire of placing on the market a standard stock feed from those screenings, and it was contemplated at the outset that the stuff would be ground fine to destroy the vitality of the enormous proportion of noxious weeds contained in it. This thing has been played with to such an extent that one is inclined to look for the joker in legislation dealing with commercial feeding stuffs, and there was certainly a joker in the Order in Council of December, 1917, dealing with commercial feeding stuffs. After specifying that the mill-feed should be pure this clause was enacted. It is not a Bill; it is an Order in Council of December, 1917, and it reads as follows:
The presence of presumably vital weed seeds in any form of feeding stuff shall be held to constitute adulteration under the Act, when more than twenty-five seeds per pound, as enumerated in the Seed Control Act, 1911, are present in the feed.
This Section 17 permits twenty-five vital weed seeds but Parliament, under the Seed Control Act, has provided for what are termed noxious weeds; consequently all the vital, non-noxions weed seeds that millers see fit to put in may be put in. There is as well no limit to the quantity of devitalized seeds they may put into their feed stuff. This is what took place when the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) w.as Minister elf Agriculture, and it has resulted, I venture to say in more trouble and dissatisfaction among the agriculturists of this country in regard to feed stuffs than anything that has happened during many years. The prices which were received for screenings before the war according to the

evidence of the general manager of the United Grain Growers which we have, were not the high prices which have been alluded to by the hon. member for Marquette. The average price paid for three years previous to the war wrais $4.91 and for the last six years the price was $8.84 per ton. This was after the Government placed an embargo on the export of screenings. The report which (I read from the Dominion analyst at the last session in regard to bran and shorts was convincing evidence-J think it convinced this House and it certainly convinced the members df the committee on agriculture-that something was necessary to control the operations of the millers. Their contention was that it was perfectly legitimate for them to adulterate by reason of the legislation and the Orders in Council which have been passed. When they were up for examination on this question they said: " If it is so necessary and advisable to exclude these weed seeds, why does not Parliament take action in the matter?" Yet we have the Act of last year attempting to deal with this matter by standard and the other provisions of the Adulteration Act have been taken care of in two Bills which have been introduced by the hon. the Minister of Health (Mr. Rowell). The resolution before ns this afternoon does not contain the provision which I think it should.
Just a word or two in regard to the regulations which may be enacted by the minister if the Bill to be introduced should go through in the form of the resolution, The resolution provides that the minister shall have power
To appoint an advisory board which may at his request define for his guidance and recommend regulations that may be established under the proposed Act.
In referring to that to-day he stated there should be some elasticity to the Bill in order to allow the department to make such changes as might be deemed advisable. I am not sure but that there may be some force in that argument but I think it is advisable, in so far as it is possible to do so, to define in the Bill exactly what we want done in regard to matters of this kind because by the appointment of boards of that kind you are not going to bring about the desired result. I believe that the minister, with the expert assistance of the heads of his department, should be in a position to define what should be necessary and to propose legislation along 3 p.m. that line in the Bill rather than that he should appoint boards

or commissions of an advisory nature. You cannot shelve the responsibility. It must eventually rest upon the minister and his assistants in the department and I believe that in so far as it is possible the provisions of this legislation should be clearly defined in the Bill to be introduced. I have looked over the resolutions with a good deal of care and I am satisfied that you will find that under the definition of "commercial feeding stuff" the resolution contemplates a mixture of bran and shorts by those who secure the right to mix or adulterate. There is no provision to ensure the purity of bran and shorts. They aTe absolutely pure when the wheat is milled and when these commodities are turned out from the mill. Nothing can get into them unless there is an intention to do so on the part off the miller. The wheat is made as clean as it is possible to make it, before milling but the millers offer the excuse of saying: "We purchase this wheat and as there is a certain amount of weeds seed in it, we .are justified in disposing of it in this way." We all know that wheat is graded and that a certain amount of dockage is allowed for dirt. If the miller has an accumulation of these screenings on hand, let him dispose of it as screenings, do not let him mix it with his mill feed as has been done in the past. I want to again emphasize the importance of making some provision for rescuing the Bill introduced last session to insure the purity of the commodities to which I have referred, and I would call the attention of the minister to the matter.
Mr. DEiOHiEINTE: The minister is certainly doing his best to promote the interests of the farming community, and we must congratulate him. But at the same time it appears to me that the power contained in this resolution to make regulations and change them at any time the minister pleases is too wide a power to confer on him. It would also be difficult for the manufacturers of commercial feeding stuffs to keep themselves posted if changes are frequently made.
But what I want to especially .refer to is section 4 (a):
That the minister may refuse to register any commercial feeding stuff under a name or brand which in the opinion of the minister would tend to mislead or deceive with respect to the materials of which it is composed, or when the statement of the contents is in the opinion of the minister incomplete or misleading. The Minister may also refuse to register more than one commercial feeding stuff under the same name or brand.
This gives the minister discretion to ieg-s-ter more than one commercial feeding stuff under the same brand or name, and I would suggest that the section should be changed by substituting "shall" for "may," so that he will have no option but to refuse to register more than one commercial feeding stuff under the same name or brand.
Section 11 provides:
That any officer or person charged with the enforcement of this proposed Act shall have access to any elevator, warehouse or other premises where grains or other constituents of feeding stuffs are blended, or supposed to be blended, for the manufacture of feeding stuffs, and any premises or receptacles containing or supposed to contain feeding stuff, wherever they may be located, and may take any samples from any receptacle on payment of the value of such samples.
That allows any officer to enter premises where feeding stuffs are kept by a farmer for his own private purposes, and I think this power should be restricted.
Then by section 12 it is provided that the minister shall have power:
(b) to make regulations prescribing the maximum amount of whole or ground weed seeds and other substances which may be allowed in any grain or other ingredients used for the manufacture of feeding stuffs, without affecting the right to describe it as clean within the meaning of the proposed Act;
The first section of this resolution gives an interpretation of "Commercial Feeding Stuff," "Chop Feed" and "Feeding Stuff"; but by section 12 (b) a certain quantity of . whole or ground weed seeds and other substances may be allowed to enter into the grain or other ingredients used for the manufacture of feeding stuffs without affecting the right to describe it as "clean" within the meaning of the proposed Act. Those two provisions, it seems to me, are contradictory. A farmer or consumer buying commercial feeding stuff, chop feed, or feeding stuff will, under the first definition, assume that he is buying commodities that do not contain weed seed and other substances. If we are going to stand by the first definition I think section 12 (b) should be deleted.
Section 13 in effect incorporates a similar section contained in the Commercial Feeding Stuffs Bill which was introduced by the President of the Privy Council (iMr. Rowell) early in the session and subsequently withdrawn. This penalizes the storekeeper or dealer selling feeding stuffs which on analysis are found not to comply with the requirements of the Act unless he is able to prove that such feeding stuffs have not been tampered with while in his possession. But it is conceivable that in many cases

it would be very difficult for the storekeeper to furnish the requisite proof, and it seems to me that the manufacturer should be sued in the first instance, as otherwise the storekeeper will not be able to rely on the manufacturer's certificate attached to the feeding stuffs purchased by him and will be liable to prosecution for what is really an infringement of the Act by the manufacturer himself. I think the section should be amended so as to make the manufacturer liable in the first instance.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: We have marketed in this country about 150,000 tons of screenings annually. While containing some grains which are useless for feed and injurious to livestock-and these constitute only a small proportion to the whole-a great deal of the screenings as originally turned out make very excellent feed. In experiments conducted at our experimental farms it has been proved that recleaned screenings are often more valuable as a feeding stuff than bran. Any hon. members who have been in the livestock business and have had to pay the extremely high prices for feed that have prevailed during the past	few years will	agree	thatevery	pound of feeding stuff	that,
we can possibly secure is required in this country, and that if we are to put Canada's agriculture on a sound foundation we should use every pound of it for the feeding of stock rather than for export.
It is proposed by regulation to limit the impurities in bran to one per cent. Bran is usually worth more than the commercial feeding stuffs. It is necessary to have these regulations, as I have pointed out, on account of the changes that may occur from time to time. We had an illustration of that during the war, when the percentage of flour extraction from wheat was extended some seven or eight per cent, with a consequent immediate effect on the bran turned out from wheat milled in that way. The resolution says that the minister "may" appoint a board to consult with him in the pire-paringof these regulations. That board would probably consist of millers, farmers and consumers-representatives of those interested in the trade generally-the members of which would be called together in order that the benefit of their advice might be obtained. The idea is not to shift any responsibility from the minister or any of his officers to that board; the minister would , Iill be responsible, of course, for any legislation carried out in connection therewith.
With regard to the suggestion that there would be an interference with the farmer
[Mr, DDechene.l
on his premises in connection with the making or grinding of feeding stuffs, I may say that we do not interfere with him at all until such time as he proposes to sell the material. There has to be a certain amount of elasticity in regulations with regard to impurities in grain, because pure grain is something that does not exist.. Any grain taken from the field contains a greater or less percentage of impurities. The matter of the payments of costs by the retailer has been very carefully thought out; that course was adopted in order to avoid collusion between the retailer and the manufacturer. As to the identification of any lot of feed arriving in bulk at a station, there should be no very great difficulty about that because we could have access to the bills of lading and could trace the car by its number.


William Frederic Kay: I have listened attentively to the minister but have heard him make no explanation with regard to weed seeds whose vitality could not be destroyed in grinding. Does he not consider that an important aspect of the matter?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Section 7 of the resolution provides;
That no grain, screenings or any other ingredient which contains in excess of the quantity allowed by regulation, any seeds, damaged grain or other material designated by regulation of the minister as injurious to the health of livestock or poultry, shall be used as a constituent of any feeding stuffs.
The presence of a small quantity of that seed cannot be controlled, and it is proposed that every sack shall be marked so that a man shall know exactly what he is buying. If all the farms to which this feeding stuff goes were now in absolutely clean condition I could admit the force of the argument, but they certainly are not. In * fact, it is very unusual to see an absolutely clean farm; they are all more or less weedy,
I am sorry to say.


William Frederic Kay: Is that not all the more reason why they should have no more weeds?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: It would hardly do, for the sake of keeping out a few weeds, to get rid of 150,000 tons of feeding stuff which can be used with very excellent results in the improvement of our livestock and in the consequent building up of the wealth of the country. By providing proper safeguards in the matter I do not think that any farmer will suffer very severely.


Donald Sutherland: I am sorry that the minister has made no reference to the possibility of the adulteration of mill feeds. He

states that it is the intention to provide that not more than one per cent of adulteration shall be permitted in bran and shorts. The interpretation clause of the resolution defines, "commercial feeding stuff," "chopped feed" and "feeding stuff." Now, bran and shorts undoubtedly come under the head of feeding stuff. You will note that the following is section 8 of the resolution :
That no feeding stuff shall be sold, or offered, exposed or held for sale, which contains any vital weed seeds in excess of the quantity allowed by regulation.
That would imply that provided the vitality of the seeds is destroyed you can put an unlimited quantity of them into' the feeding stuff, and that is the very interpretation that the millers have been making of the regulations that have been in force for several years. The following is section 12, (b) of the resolution:
The minister shall have power,

(b) to make regulations prescribing the maximum amount of whole or ground weed seeds and-other substances which may be allowed in any grain or other ingredients used for the manufacture of feeding stuffs, without affecting the right to describe it as clean within the meaning of the proposed Act;
"Used for the manufacture of feeding stuffs," iwhidh implies that the two articles of feeding stuffs to which I have referred are not complete until they go through another manufacturing process at the hands of the miller. So )far as the 150,000 tons of weed seeds that are accumulating at the elevators are concerned, it would be worth millions o*f dollars to this country if every ounce of it was destroyed at the elevators rather than sent broadcast throughout the country. Thousands of animals have died as the result of the adulteration of feeding stuffs in the past, to say nothing of the untold loss that has otherwise resulted through the failure to obtain satisfactory results in the feeding of stock. The livestock industry is the one upon which agriculture in the main depends. It is well known that the grain production per acre has been gradually falling off in every province, and we must realize where we shall arrive if the present practice is continued. The grain companies of the Wiest may find it desirable to dispose of these screenings in this way. But there is no reason why any of these small seeds should reach the elevator; they could very well be separated from the grain on the farm. If they are sent to the elevator the farmer has to pay freight on them and he is docked for them when they arrive there, those who are handling the grain retaining up to three percent of the dockage and are thereby reaping an immense profit. If anything in excess of three per cent is found in the grain it is disposed of for the farmer, but he is charged foir the bringing of that stuff to the elevator. It is a very simple process to put a screen in the 'Separator which will take out all the small seeds; that is done in Ontario and, I have no doubt, in many other provinces as well. If some contagious disease were brought into this country and it was found that the spread of the disease would be of advantage to some one, do' you think that its disposition to that end, with the attendant risk of spreading the disease, would be countenanced by those in authority looking after the health of the people? I am disappointed to find a member of the Government or, indeed, any bon. member advocating that we must take care of this dirt that has accumulated at elevators in this way on account of bad farming. As regards the commercial feeding stuffs that have been disposed of since 1917, the evidence in the Department of Agriculture shews conclusively that the people who manufacture these feeding stuffs have not lived up to the regulations passed in regard to them, but have flagrantly violated them. This is borne out by answers to questions which I placed on the Order Paper this year, in those answers, it was shown that enormous quantities of this stuff was still being ground into mill feed. With regard to that matter I have here a report made by an analyst in the seed branch last session when this matter was under discussion. It states that:
In 19 samples of "recleaned" screenings received at the laboratory on July 1, the average number of mustards per ounce is 201.
Two hundred and one mustard seeds per ounce in this standard stock feed which the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) lauds so highly and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolrnie) refers to as being such a valuable asset in building up agriculture in this country. It is little wonder that we have the condition of affairs that exists; to-day of farmers moving into the towns and cities, and that we find the fields growing up with a crop of weeds that were unknown ten years ago. Its Parliament going to pass legislation which permits a condition of that kind to continue? The minister should take immediate steps toi see that all these black seeds are taken out of the screenings at the elevators and destroyed.

It is true that there is in the screenings a great deal of small wheat and other grains, such as wild buckwheat, that have actual feeding value and these could be taken out, but the great bulk of the black seeds could be taken out on the farms at the time of threshing. The thresher, if the season is a bad one and there is .a heavy crop of weeds, threshing by the bushel, the more dirt he has in grain the more he is going to get for his work. That is one of the causes of this deleterious material being left in the grain. This should be brought home to the people who are responsible for this condition of 'affairs, namely, the farmers who grow the stuff. Steps should be taken to see that this stuff is taken out of the grain before the grain is sent to the elevator at all, and in that way the millers wiill not have the temptation to mix this stuff with their commercial feeding stuffs as has 'been the case in the past. I do not like to speak in this way with regard to this matter, but the fact is that this has been going on and getting worse from year to year until to-day in Ontario, in which about 40 per cent of the livestock of the country is raised, progressive dairymen, during the lactation period, although bran and shorts are undoubtedly the most valuable feeding stuff that the dairyman can get for hi)s cows, *avoid feeding bran and shorts as they would the most deadly poison, because for years past they have been lasing annually large numbers of their cows for some unaccountable reason, and they I have reached the conclusion that this loss is due to the immense quantity of this stuff that is in the mill feed.
Special emphasis is laid on noxious weeds, and one of the most poisonous seeds that we have is What is knorwn as worm seed mustard not classed as noxious.. The evidence in the department shows conclusively that many complaints have been received from farmers who have lost large numbers of young pigs through feeding this stuff. I referred to this last year and it is not necessary that I .should go over it again. The same report says:
Of 32 samples of shorts, the records show 27 containing poisonous weed seeds, and 5 with unground seeds of noxious weeds. In the case of bran, 19 out of 28 samples show poison seeds, and 8 have noxious weeds.
The report of the Dominion Analyst, Dr. McGill, for 1919, states in regard to this matter:
Bran is adulterated by mixing with oat hulls and all sorts of rubbish. Shorts, in many cases, is simply bran reground so as to make it fine.

I am going to trespass on the patience of the committee for a moment or two in order to refer to some of the analyses made by Dr. McGill as shown in Bulletin No. 412 for 1918. An inspector in the Vancouver district states that in a sample of mill feed of which the Lake of the Woods Milling Company were the vendors, there were 8,608 lamb's quarters and 48 black bindweed in a single pound. Can hon. members realize that any miller, particularly one of the largest milling companies, the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, would dare to put such stuff on the market and endeavour to sell it as what is known in this resolution as commercial feeding stuffs? That is the worst instance I see in this report, although such adulteration is quite common. Another sample showed 1008 lamb's quarters, and I could go on all down the line quoting similar instances. In a sample of mill feed sold by the Quaker Oats Company of Saskatoon, there were 16 wild oats, 192 black bindweed, 1,344 lamb's quarters in a single pound. That is the sort of stuff that is being sent broadcast throughout the country. We have been assured from year to year that the Government were going to take steps to deal with this evil; but instead of that being done, I am satisfied, from the resolution that has been introduced this afternoon, we are going to perpetuate this evil in even' worse form than in the past. The millers may make mild protests against having to fix tags to bags containing' this commodity when it is placed on the market. I venture to -state that the millers have already been consulted in this matter ^id that they will be prominent on any. such committee as has been referred to by the minister in order to see that their interests are taken care of, because it is well known that the farmers have not taken steps along that line in the past. Hon. members who from what is known as the Farmers' group, or who appropriate that name to themselves in this House, instead of condemning the practice that has been going on in the past virtually countenance it and make excuses for the condition which existed when their leader (Mr. Crerar) was Minister of Agriculture.
We are entitled to some assurance from the minister that something more than granting power to make regulations will be contained in this Bill. I have absolute confidence that if some of the men who are in the Department of Agriculture are given a free hand, they will he able to deal with this matter most effectively. They have the evidence of what is going on, and the fact

that 150,000 tons of screenings annually accumulate at the elevators is going to be a loss to the country if it is not disposed of, is as poor .an excuse as could be advanced. If this stuff can be disposed of in the United States, then, for Heaven's sake, let us see that every pound of it goes there; otherwise, let us see that it is recleaned; that only the grain in it that is of any use is kept, and that the noxious weed seeds are entirely eliminated from it and destroyed. I do not believe it is possible to eliminate the noxious weed seeds entirely, because the commercial feeding stuffs that have been placed on the market during the last two years have contained at least 10 per cent of wild coats and this stuff has been shipped throughout the country with the result that wild oats are now a growing crop in the backyards of everybody who. is feeding fowl or anything like that on a small scale. The consequence is that this stuff is scattered broadcast throughout the country. I have but mildly expressed my feelings in regard to this matter. I must again express my disappointment over what has happened with regard to the Bill of last session. Bill after Bill has been introduced in the House here, and finally the one with regard to commercial feeding stuffs was withdrawn and the legislation now comes under the Department of Agriculture, where it rightly belongs. I am heartily in accord with that, and I have advocated it for many years. When the minister takes the stand that the farmers of this country are so badly in need of this stuff as feed, I think he loses sight of the injury that it does. So far as the province of Ontario is concerned, where the value of the produce of livestock for a single year amounted to $369,111,000, the farmers, I am sure, will not feel that their interests have been taken care of if we are going to have a continuance of such a condition as we have had in the past. It is well know that to-day many farmers have not a hog on their farms who in the past raised hogs in large numbers. The same thing applies with regard to dairy stock. Many of the farmers are going out of that branch of farming, and it is in no small measure because of the unsatisfactory results from feeding commercial feeding stuffs and the mixtures that are being sold to-day. You can scarcely pick up an agricultural paper without seeing advertisements of commercial feeding stuffs on the market. The farmer as a rule is pretty well aware of what it is profitable to feed to his stock, and it is not necessary for some one to tell them what foods have the right
amount of protein in them. The bran you find on the market to-day is so scoured that it is necessary to add some ground mustard seeds in order that it may increase its protein. It is by the addition of ground mustard seeds that they bring it up to the standard, one of the reasons why these people who are putting this stuff up are anxious to have this condition of affairs continue is to enable'them to increase their profits.
Mr. TOLlMIE: For the information of the hon. member from South Oxford I might say that what is known as the Sutherland amendment to the Adulteration Act is still in force, that is, with regard to bran and middlings. If what the hon. member said was true, that the 150,000 tons of screenings gathered at the head of the Lakes was all dirt, I would say: Send it to the United States if they want it. But it is not all dirt. Considerably more than 50 per cent of it is good feed material, consisting of broken wheat, oats, barley, buckwheat, flax and other material having a high feed value. As I pointed out before, it has been shown by experiments carried on at the experimental farm to have a greater feed value than bran. In addition to that, I know as President of the Western Canada Live Stock Union for two years prior to 1917? that farmers were clamouring for this feed from one end of Canada to the other. They wanted it all over the country, and under all conditions, recognizing its feed value.


Donald Sutherland: They do not want
it to-day.
Mr. TOLOVflE: With regard to the criticism of the Department of Agriculture with reference to the administration of the previous Acts,_ they were not under the Department of Agriculture, but we are now trying to make an improvement and bring this matter under this department. With reference to the hon. member's statement that there were 201 mustard seeds in an ounce of feed, that is less than 1 per cent. No. 3 Northern Wheat very often contains 2i per cent, so right here by the proposed regulations we intend to make we shall have a most decided improvement in the quality of our bran.
There has been a slight implication that we propose to favour the miller. I have not been long enough in politics to favour anyboldy, and just as long as I have the honour to occupy this position I shall deliver the goods straight and to the very best of my .ability, favouring nobody. The suggestion that so many men are going out

of the hog and dairy business because of the sale of screenings is not well founded. Every one who is familiar with the -hog business to-day knows that the present market conditions are very complicated; that our price in this country is set by the price and the demand in Great Britain, that there is a large accumulation of American bacon still on the British market, that there is a large amount of American bacon purchased in the United States and which still remains there, that the British are making every possible effort to get rid of this bacon which they have on hand before purchasing much bacon from Canada. The high price of grain has been very largely the cause of men going out of the hog business, for the reason that at present prices it is only just possible to turn out bacon at practically a little more than cost, so the inducements aie not very great. A great many people have gone out of the dairy business principally because of the scarcity of help and the high cost of feed. If people in the country kept cows of good quality that would return a profit they would make money at present prices, but unfortunately a good many of them still stick to the old-fashioned dairy cow j ielding from 4,000 to 5,000 pounds of milk a year, and a man who milks a cow of that kind twice a day and feeds her on high priced feed will find that at the end of the year he has been farming in a circle and has not got anywhere.
The hon. member has been good enough to refer to the staff of the Department of Agriculture, who are thoroughly posted in all matters relating to feed. Over ten careful consultations have been held by the staff, and the present Bill is the result of those consultations. We have gone into the matter very thoroughly indeed, and have at last arrived at something that we think will render very valuable service to the farmer and place him in a position to buy what he wants and pay for what he actually gets, and not for something that he does not get. We hope that the Bill will render very valuable service to the dairying industry and also to the hog industry of Canada.


Mr. J. E. SINCLAIR:: Will the board to which the minister refers be paid or serve in an honorary capacity?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Under the proposed legislation the minister may or may not form this board. If appointed, it would not be a salaried board, but they would have their actual expenses paid.


Mr. J. F. REID:: I am sorry I was not
in the House all the time the hon. member for South Oxford was speaking. I agree that these noxious weed seeds should not be allowed in either bran or shorts, but I am afraid my hon. friend would give the country the impression that all these noxious weed seeds come from the western provinces. I want to tell my hon. friend from South Oxford that my first experience with noxious weed seeds in the West was with seeds from Ontario, and I have not got rid of them yet, and I suppose I never shall. I want my hon. friend to understand that the province of Ontario supplied the western provinces with the first batch of noxious weeds, and it is now coming home to my hon. friend.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. Tolmie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 165, to regulate the sale and inspection of commercial feeding stuffs, bran, shorts, middlings and chopped feeds.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.



CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, 1907, AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) Bill No. 156, to amend the Customs Tariff Act, 1907, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 3-duties reduced.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What is this section?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: This is the 71 per cent abolition clause.
Bill reported.


Mr. SPEAKER:: When .shall the Bill be read the third time?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister think it imperative that the Bill be read the third time now?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not if my hon. friend desires to have the third reading postponed. I have no desire to press the third reading if there is any objection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not imagine that any exception will be taken to the third reading, but the attendance is rather thin this afternoon and I Ithink the third reading might stand.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Very well.



DIRECTOR OF COAL OPERATIONS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Arthur Meighen (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 153 (from the Senate) respecting the Director of Coal Operations.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This Bill comes from the Senate?


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister kindly explain the nature of it? Copies of the Bill have not been distributed.


Arthur Meighen: The Bill, which is printed in English and French, is very simple. It maintains the effect of the Orders in Council that provided for the control of coal operations in district 18, under Mr. Armstrong. The Orders in Council are all referred to in the Bill, which confirms them and continues their effect in force until the end of the next session of Parliament.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From what I can gather, having followed the discussion the other day in the other Chamber, this Bill will render more secure the operations in the coal mines in the West. By virtue of the Orders in Council those operations were made easier and the threatened coal famine has been avoided, and it is considered, therefore, that this arrangement ought to be continued in view of the many strikes which are impending in the neighbouring part of the American Republic. I understand that there is a gentleman, a Mr. Armstrong, who has been appointed and given certain powers as regards employment of men and that under 'his direction the operations have been fairly steady and have given satisfaction. I take some interest in this matter. Two years ago I made a motion concerning coal operations. During the summer our people do not think about what may happen in the fall or winter, and I believe we lack any adequate comprehension of the danger with which we are always threatened in having before us a very cold winter. Two years ago, when I made that motion, I thought that the Government ought to* take all necessary measures in due time in order to maintain as far as possible the production of coal in those western mines so as to give the settlers and others out there the proportion of coal which must be distributed to every family. I am always nervous at the beginning of winter when I read in the newspapers that there are strikes here 202
and there and that there is not the proportion of coal which should be distributed in those far-away districts. There is no timber available for fuel purposes and therefore anything the Government can do to promote the operation of the mines in due season ought to be encouraged. I followed the discussion of the Bill the other day, and I approve of this measure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
minister give an explanation of the Bill?


Arthur Meighen: I really could not give as good an explanation as that which has been given by ,my hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux). I might say, however, that Mr. Armstrong has been the director of coal operations, and, by virtue, of an Order in Council, has been, in effect, the arbitrator between the coal operators and the men for the past two or three years. He has established a measure of confidence on both sides. I cannot say that the confidence is complete on either side, because I know both sides have complained, but nevertheless he has established a measure of confidence that makes him the best choice we know of for the work. If there is nobody to intervene then what the hon. member for Maisonneuve predicts is very likely to arise. Coal miners in that district are perhaps the most disposed of any of their class in this Dominion to have differences with the proprietors of the mines, and I would apprehend that we would very soon be in the position he describes unless some provision were made for a continuation of the control for a short time at least.


Mr. CURRIE:: If I understand the matter correctly, the result of these Orders in Council is that the miners throughout a large section of the West persist in obtaining very large pay for the coal that is mined, and that the Government has been kind enough to pay them a certain amount for every day that they are idle. In this way these men have taken us by the throat. Is that policy still to be continued? Are the miners to work only an hour a day and get $2, or $2.50, or $1.50 from the Government for being idle the remainder of the day? Are no steps being taken to bring about a condition whereby the mines can operate during the off season and have 4 p.m. the coal stored? It must be apparent to the House that one of the difficulties in the way of getting this coal out for the western settlers is that of financing it. Could not the Government assist in financing coal operations in such a way that during the season when coal is not needed it will be mined and stored at

/

various points? If the owners of the coal mines dig that coal during the season when there is no demand for it they will have to finance it in order to carry it. The coal miner is not able to continue operations, to ship coal during the spring and summer when it is not needed, unload it at the different stations and bear the carrying charges. That is too heavy a burden for him to undertake. We will never have conditions right in this country until some method is adopted whereby there will be a large storage of coal continuously through the summer and winter. The province of Ontario is in a condition now that makes this need very apparent. We cannot tell at what minute we are going to be entirely out of coal and yet the burden of storing and carrying coal is too heavy for private individuals. With coal at a high price, it is a highly speculative operation to store coal unless you know what you are going to get for it when the winter season opens.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In Montreal the big industrial concerns are experiencing a coal famine. The Gas Company-


John Allister Currie: So is the Gas Company in Toronto.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -is suffering from a coal famine. The gas distributed last week had a peculiar stench which, it was explained, was due to the quality of coal they had on hand. Why should this country be threatened in that way? We have the coal in the East and in the West and we must provide the means to operate these coal mines and be more independent of other countries. Why should we not?


John Allister Currie: I agree entirely with what the hon. member says. There is no reason why it should not be done. Now is the time to begin shipping Nova Scotia coal to Montreal. The Government has built a great many ships and some of them might be employed in this work. It is far more important that coal should be carried to Toronto and Montreal than that it should be sent to Italy because our industries will suffer unless this is done. The same condition exists in the West. The farmers cannot tell when they are going to get coal. The coal miner sits down and does nothing all summer when he should be digging coal. Everybody wants his coal at the same time. The condition is very serious in Ontario at the present time. The United States coal mine operators and the railways are determined that we shall not get any coal. They are going to starve us into giving them free pulp and they are apparently adopting that
fMr. Currie.]
underhand method for the purpose of doing it. If we are going to carry on business in this country I do not see anything else for this Government to do than to make a start by putting ships on to carry coal from our own coal mines in the Maritime Provinces to Montreal, Toronto and the West. Every ship load of coal that goes forward will help to break the embargo of the American coal owners against Canada because after all Canada is the best market for hard coal that the miners of Pennsylvania have. We take the bulk of their hard coal. They do not sell any hard coal west of their mines. It is all soft coal that is sold in Chicago and the West. But if you do begin using soft coal in Canada you have some piker get up in a council and say that you must not do so because it will blacken the wash on the clothes line of some woman in the outskirts of the city. It is up to the Government to see that we get an adequate supply for next year and one of the ways to do that is to see that the mining of coal is carried on continuously. The Government might finance the miners in' order to enable them to continue operations during the period when coal is not in demand so that the coal could be stored at different points throughout the country to be delivered to the people when required. This is a very serious matter. Many industries in Western Ontario will have to be shut down. Gas companies have been mentioned by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve. The gas company in the city of Toronto has not two weeks' supply of coal ahead. Efforts have been made to bring about a condition whereby large quantities of coal might be stored in Toronto. There was a proposition some months ago that coking plants should be established by the principal cities to supply the fuel required when hard coal could not he had. But if you ever propose anything of that kind in Ontario or elsewhere, there is always somebody to get up and start raising a row about it-I do not know why.
The fact remains that unless we get coal in Ontario at an early date most of our industries that depend upon coal for heating purposes will have to close down and I believe the same condition confronts the West. I would like the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) to tell the House how much money it cost us to bonus the coal miners in the West last year while they did no work. Such a condition of things cannot be allowed to recur in this country. Coal is one of our great key industries, and the Government should take control of the situation. There is no reason why our

western coal should noit be brought as far east as Port Arthur; our railways do not encourage this traffic simply because they prefer to haul coal to Winnipeg as return freight to fill their empty westbound cars. - This is the time for the Government to state whether they are going to see that Ontario is not starved for coal next winter. The lumber men-the timber wolves-have taken away all our timber, .and to-day cord-wood is twice as dear as coal wherever there is any supply, which is strictly limited. As a result the people in our towns and villages are suffering very seriously. But to aggravate this serious condition the Railway Commission same time ago passed a regulation by the operation of which the little towns and villages that are not on a competitive line of railway have to pay $8 a car more for their coal than do other places which .are more fortunately situated. I brought this matter to the attention of the House last year, but nothing has been done by way of remedy.
This is the most serious question that confronts us at the present moment, and unless something is done there is no doubt that all our factories west of .Montreal will have to shut down, and farmers and others will have to burn their furniture this winter to keep warm. It is up to the Government to see that some steps are taken to relieve the situation. Why should we have men idle all the summer long and be paying them when they ought to be at work? They ought to be getting out coal during the summer months. Formerly the coal produced in the summer used to be brought to Quebec and Montreal by boat, but that condition no longer obtains, and now we have to use American coal .as far east as Quebec. Something must be done by the Government to free us from the domination of the coal barons of America, and it seems to me our mercantile marine could be put to no better use than in bringing in cargoes of coal from Nova 'Scotia toi help make ns independent of the American supply.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. BURNHAM:: A few months ago I brought this whole matter before the House-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. Mr. Devlin his the floor.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: While listening to the last speaker (Mt. Currie) I could not help remembering that for same years we (on this side of the House) were 202i
advocating the building of a canal which would have brought coal right down to the point sought by my hon. friend, and that that transportation would have been far cheaper than by rail. I am sorry that my hon. friend did not see fit at the time to support our efforts to have that canal constructed.


John Allister Currie: Which canal?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The Georgian Bay canal.


John Allister Currie: How would it get coal to Toronto?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Right straight from the Great Lakes.


John Allister Currie: You need ta go and study your geography. There is no coal along the Georgian Bay canal.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am not saying that there is coal along the Georgian Bay canal. What I do say is that it would have helped to solve the problem by providing cheaper transportation from the Great Lakes because it would lessen the rail haul. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I am glad-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would remind hon. members that the debate before the House is the principle involved in a Bill which has for its object the ratification o/f certain Orders in Council in reference to the appointment of a director of coal operations. I am sure the House will agree that the Chair has not endeavoured to restrict the debate in any degree, but I think it would be rather unfortunate if we allowed it to be further widened to take in the Georgian Bay canal, and perhaps the hon. member will fry to speak to the Bill before the House.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I had no intention of discussing the Georgian Bay canal. 1 was simply giving expression to a thought that arose while listening to my hon. friend (Mr. Currie). I rose to say that I believed that the officials who have had to deal with the coal situation 'have done their very best to have Canada supplied with as much coal from the outside as was possible. I conceive that this is a question on which we can find common ground, for coal enters into the necessities of life, and I would1 like to support my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) in all his endeavours to get the West supplied with coal. Personally I would like to see our western coal come farther east and our Nova Scotia coal go farther west so as to make the commodity as cheap as possible for our people.

In looking over the coal statistics I was somewhat surprised to find that we have 111,169 square miles of coal areas, comprising 8,845,900,000 tons of semi-anthracite coal,
313.573.000.	000 tons of bituminous coal, 932,-
053,000,000 tons of sub-bituminous coal, and
111.286.000.	000 tons of lignite. In other words, we have within Canada all the coal necessary to prevent a shortage of fuel among our people, and the point to he emphasized is that it is one of our natural resources that should be developed to the fullest extent. Therefore, while supporting my -hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) in his endeavours to get coal to the West, I do hope that the Government in its plans for the immediate future will see to the development of our coal resources to their fullest extent, in order that Canada may be independent of the United States in the matter of fuel.


John Hampden Burnham: Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago I brought this question before the House by way of resolution, and on investigating the matter I was immensely surprised to find that, notwithstanding the fact that Ontario was in a most perilous position in regard to its coal supply, nobody had seen fit to investigate the cost of bringing coal into Ontario either from the West or from the East.
When I made some inquiries at headquarters I found that they knew nothing about it. Then I proceeded to carry my examination further, and at last I found out from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that so far as they were concerned it would cost about $12 a ton to bring a car, say, from Calgary to Toronto. However, they said they could not say that if a very large business was developed it would not cost less. In any event, this fuel question has to be solved for Ontario. As stated-by the hon. member who has just spoken we have immense supplies of coal, both east and west, yet here we are in Ontario on the very brink of perishing from lack of coal. The matter is extremely serious for Ontario. The people feel very keenly indeed about it; they are continually asking us why we do not do something with regard to it. We have the coal, but apparently we have not the brains to get it here.
Some time ago, in a resolution which I introduced with regard to the cost' of the necessaries of life, I used the word "desperate." That did not please the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) and he moved an amendment to the resolution. I accepted the amendment and the resolution wals car-
ried, and we were to wait for revelations with regard to it. Now, in that resolution the fuel question was involved, and I think, with, all due respect to the minister and his great administrative powers, that he ought to take up this question of the solution of the difficulty for Ontario, because Ontario- we cannot Tepeat it too often

is in a most serious position. Wood is altogether out of the question. In fact I was so discouraged with regard to coal that I began to turn to the alcohol question to see what could be done about that. No doubt in a few years we shall have alcohol as a fuel. The people of Ontario have been groping in the dark, as it were, to find out some means of furnishing themselves with heat and motive power throughout the year, chiefly in the winter, but they have not got anywhere. It would not be too much to say that some special legislation will have to be enacted or some special effort made to provide the people with fuel, because they have to have it. It is absurd, when you think of the vast stores of coal that we have in Canada, that we cannot do better than we have been doing. Lately the Research Council has found out that briquettes, which are about fifty per cent coal, and twenty-Ave per cent- petroleum and so on, furnish something of higher efficiency than even anthracite coal. If so, why can they not have that industry developed? I have had letters from a great many people in the West, from coal users and -coal companies, asking why it is that these things cannot be 'looked into and the development of the coal industry proceeded *with. If the West concludes that it is possible, and the East wants it, it is about time that we proceeded to get it. Certainly something will have to be done.


Walter Davy Cowan: 
Mr. E. J. MANION (Fort William and Eainy Kiver):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word on behalf of the people from my section of Ontario to support the remarks of other hon. gentlemen from different parts of that province who 'have spoken on the coal situation.
During the past few weeks I have received a number of communications dealing with this question. It certainly is evident that the people of the western end of Ontario are going to find themselves in a serious condition this winter with regard to coal if some solution of this problem is not arrived at. I know that the Government have been dealing ivith the matter because I took it up unofficially with some of its members, who told me that they were looking into it. I feel quite sure that it has not been neglected, but I would like to impress upon the other members of the Government the very great importance of this question. It seems almost a tragedy that a country such as this, as the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) has pointed out possessing the second greatest deposits of coal in the world-taking second place only to the United States-should be dependent on outside countries for our coal. Ontario, being in the centre of the country, has to get coal either from the Pennsylvania fields, or from the far West, near the home of my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Cowan), or from the Nova Scotia coal fields. It seems to me that it would be a very popular act and a very wise one if some scheme could be worked out whereby
coal could be brought to the eastern parts of Ontario from the Nova Scotia fields, and to the western parts, my own parts of Ontario, from the western fields. This question is linked up with the development of the natural resources of the country, a matter which I brought up in this House on three or four different	occasions,-the	development of our iron, coal and oil supplies. As the hon. member for Regina has pointed out, it would1 help relieve the deficit on operation of our National railways if we could devise some means of utilizing our cqal deposits. I simply desire to impress upon the House and upon the Government the gravity of the situation which faces Ontario in particular in regard to the securing of coal for the coming winter.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, before the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Meighen) answers the inquiries that have been made, I should like to direct his attention to certain facts that were brought out during the last session in an investigation that was made in the Senate. The minister will remember that an old gentleman from California claimed to have secured very large areas of excellent coal fields in Alberta. For reasons which the minister will understand, the lease was cancelled and was subsequently taken up by one or two others, and I understand that afterwards that lease also was cancelled. I gathered from conversation with this man from California, who showed me all his plans-I knew nothing about them more than what he told me-that he was quite willing to surrender to the nation any rights that he had, provided he was refunded the amount he had spent in exploring these coal areas. If his statement is correct, there are in Alberta millions of tons of excellent coal that might be used to the advantage of the nation. I do not know whether the minister is in a position to make any statement in regard to the matter at this time; I am not pressing him to do so. But if he is in a position to" make a statement, I think it would be well that the country should know just what rights Canada has in connection with that large coal area in Alberta, and whether it can be developed for the benefit of the Canadian people.


Mr. M. R. BLAKE (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in regard to the coal situation, as it is a matter in which every one in Canada is deeply interested. Hon. members who

have spoken in regard, to the quantity oif coal that exists in the western provinces, and in particular, Alberta, may not be aware that much of this coal will not stand long shipping, nor long exposure, without crumbling into dust. This coal may be stored in good cool cellars and when it will give reasonable satisfaction, but much of it is of inferior quality. Some of the coal in southern Manitoba-and there is only ia small (Coal area in the southwestern portion of the province-contains 35 per cent otf moisture. Further West the percentage of moisture is less, and the quality of the coal rises 'accordingly. I understand that a briquette-making plant is now in operation in sonthern Saskatchewan, which plant by compressing the soft coal derived from some of the .soft coal mines, produces a coal of a higher heat value than the best anthracite coal.
I am informed that the coal in the Smoky river area which caused a great deal of discussion in the House last year, has a higher heating value and is equal to any anthracite coal, and the Government would he well advised to see that those coal areas are transferred to the Canadian National railways, as they would then become a national asset. This is the only really valuable coal field accessible to the National xailways which has not yet been given to some private enterprise. By constructing a railroad about 65 miles long, *conneetion could be made between the 'Canadian National railways and the Smoky river area, and as the coal starts in at the side of a hill, this would be probably one of the cheapest mining propositions that we have in this country at present. I hope the Government will use every endeavour to get the briquetting plant under way and .enlarge it to the extent found necessary, thus solving our hard coal problem.
If, as the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan) has said, a branch line of about 60 miles long will open up an anthracite area in the vicinity of Calgary, that matter should be given attention. The trouble is that most of the soft coal of Alberta will not stand shipping; it cannot be shipped for weeks and left in cars, say at the head of the Lakes, and then shipped by boat, without going to pieces and .crumbling into dust.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. J. T>. Reid) might also give attention to the matter of having a more reasonable rate of freight on coal from Alberta to Winnipeg and the rest of the West during the sum-

'mer season when railway cars are lying idle on sidings. The big rush from the West is when the grain crop is coining out and we have to depend on anthracite coal to a large extent, because the railways carry wheat to the head of the Lakes and carry back coal. The railways have had a gold mine in hauling wheat east and hauling back coal from the head of the Lakes. If it be possible for a railway to pay by hauling goods one way and empty cars back, there are plenty -of empty cars in the summer time and the railroads would be well employed if they would make a bid for -bringing coal East in the summer season. If the Canadian National railways were to do this, the deficit on out railways might he greatly reduced. These are three matters that might well be taken into consideration by the Government with great benefit to the nation at large.
Mr. JAMES R. WILSON (Saskatoon): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few observations in regard to this matter. I do not think there is anything that the people of both East and West are to-day more interested in than the development of our coal resources. The object of developing our coal resources is two-fold: First, to keep our money at home, purchasing our own materials and supplying our men with work, and second to create traffic for our railways which at the present time, show a balance on the wrong side owing to lack of traffic.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Blake) has stated, there is in Western Canada a great deal of coal that will not stand storing during the summer season. Some hon. members have suggested it will, but that is not possible because spontaneous combustion might occur. But we have hard coal, and I regret to say that up to the present time only one deposit of hard coal, known as Banff coal, has been worked, and this has been worked by the Canadian Pacific only to a very limited extent. Our experience in the West has been that while we could get a supply of this Banff coal, we did not look for Pennsylvania coal. But during the past four or five years it has been impossible to secure a supply of this Banff coal, because the Canadian Pacific Company have been producing from that particular mine only sufficient to supply their needs. There are two other known deposits, one of which has been referred to as the Smoky River deposit, and the other is the Sheep Creek deposit. The Smoky River deposit is located about 70 or 75 miles from the line of the Canadian National railways, and it is estimated that it would

cost about $1,500,000 or $2,000,000 to connect that mine with the railway. I understand that that deposit belongs to the Government, as last year the mining right was cancelled. The other deposit, which is owned by Messrs. P. Burns and Company, is located to the southwest of Calgary in the foothills of the Rocky mountains and is about 60 miles from a railway. Mr. Burns has. been making every effort to construct a branch line of railway to his mine, a distance of about 60 miles at the nearest point. I think he has gone even so far as to apply for a charter, but he has found it difficult to finance the construction of that railway.
I wish merely to bring these matters to the attention of the Government. By tapping one of these fields of hard coal the Minister of Railways or the Government could do a great deal towards putting the Canadian National railways on a paying basis, especially if it were possible to fix a rate whereby that coal could be transported to the Prairie Provinces and to Ontario so that it mijht displace Pennsylvania coal.
As regards coal nines in Western Canada, the coal of which is of a semi-bituminous nature and which will store, the operators are most anxious to mine this coal and the dealers are anxious to store it. They have been asking that, during the summer months, June, July and possibly early in August when there is very little traffic originating on the prairies, the railway companies should make the concession of reducing the freight rates say $1 a ton in order, in a measure, to offset the cost of carrying this coal in storage until it is required. I understand the matter came before the Railway Commission and this concession was refused. If the Government could do anything along this line, the storing of coal during the summer months would be encouraged.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: For a number of years I have given considerable attention to the development of the coal industry in the West, and I have long since arrived at the conclusion that we can bring coal from the Rocky Mountains and land it at Liverpool and compete with English coal, especially. at present prices. My policy would be to have a line, one already constructed or to be eredted, controlled by the Government, from Crow's Nest Pass, another from the Kicking Horse Pass, another from the Brazeau coal deposits, another from the Yellowhead Pass, and another from the Smoky River district, traversing the country to the East. The
coal industry is a most important one; it is of vital importance to our people. Last winter, in two towns that I happened to be in in the West the people were cutting green poplar bushes to keep themselves in heat till they could get coal delivered to them, and When the coal was delivered they could only get a carload at a time to the large towns. From the eastern part of the Northwest region one of the three great transcontinental roads might be utilized. It should be chosen for practically a coal road. It should have a low grade, very powerful engines, and the cars should be constructed with roller bearings and should haul from 60 to 80 tons each. It would be quite feasible for one of these engines to haul across the continent from
6,000	to 7,000 tons olf coal, which could be brought to Ontario and the far East. Similar plans should be made to develop the coal areas in the East, and it should be done on a systematic basis. I have had a good deal of experience of the coal mines in 'the West. The only anthracite coal I came across in the West was at Anthracite, referred to by my hon. friend from Saskatoon. The otheT kind of coal is termed semi-antbraciite. Pat Burns' coal, which I have had analyzed, is semi-anthracite, so is the Crow's Nest coal, the Brazeau coal, and the Yellowhead Pass coal. So far as my experience of the coal from the Grande Prairie and Smoky River districts is concerned, it alsoi is semi-anthracite, but of a very high grade. It would answer all the purposes of bituminous coal and would certainly make a very good heading coal, because we know that people all over the British Isles use soft coal for fuel, and we can do it here just as well. I give that just as an outline of a proper Government policy with regard to coal. First, it would develop the coal industry foT the people in the great Northwest and keep the people there supiplied with coal; secondly, it would enable us to get the coal down East and distribute it through Ontario, and Quebec. The Maritime Provinces could be trusted to look sifter themselves, and to ship their coal as far West as they could. I would not have this run as a Government controlled institution entirely. I would have it controlled by /the Government, but I would also give the owners of private mines the opportunity to have their coal hauled over the Government roads at the same rates, in order to bring about competition and keep down the prices, even from the Government. I would suggest that the utmost freedom 'be given to private owners

to ship their coal oiver these lines at the same rate as the Government coal. I will not say any more on this matter at the present Itiime. I have given my views in public on more than one occasion. I am satisfied that the day is not far distant when the Government iwill see the necessity of initiating some such policy to develop the industries of the grea/t Northwest.


Arthur Meighen: I am afraid the debate has travelled beyond the limits that I had come prepared to expect. There have been some phases of it, however, that have pertained directly to the Bill and I propose to refer to these first. The Bill provides merely for the retention of the powers of Mr. Armstrong until the end of the next session of the House. I can well recall that troubles in this coal district back over three or four years were about the most frequent and regular of the many difficulties that the Government of the day were confronted with from time to time. Just when things would seem to be going right for a few brief days, the news would come of another strike in district No. 18.
I do not know definitely what the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has in mind in reference to the Government paying men for being idle. There was never anything of that kind done even in the darkest days. I think he must have in mind an occasion some years ago, which can be more fully explained in committee by the hon. member for Elgin (Hon. Mr. Crothers), who at that time was Minister of Labour, when the situation in district No. 18 was pretty near the limits of tragedy, when homes in the West were without coal, a strike was on, and winter was approaching and indeed was upon them. There was a danger so immediate that anything we are confronted with today is small in comparison with it. The Minister of Labour of that day, the Hon. Mr. Crothers, went to. the district, and after very difficult negotiations he made some arrangement by which the amount in dispute between the men and the operators, or a part of the amount, the extra wages that were claimed for the time they had worked, were for the time being advanced by the Government. The operators, including the Canadian Pacific, which I think was one of the largest, undertook to recompense the Government as time went on at a certain rate per man per day, or on some such basis, and the ultimate result was that the treasury came out nearly square, the money being refunded. I do nolt know what else can he

referred to. Certainly we have never at any time put a premium on idleness, nor have we felt it was our duty in any way to put a bounty in the hands of the coal operators of this district. We have simply sought, and sought with very great success, considering what had to be gone through, by the interposition of Mr. Armstrong to bring together the operators and the men, to keep the mines going and the men working, in order thaJt there might 'be the maximum production of coal. That has been the one aim, and that aim we have for the most part reached. The other phases of the discussion have no direct connection with the merits of the Bill, but, nevertheless, are of paramount importance to the country.


John Allister Currie: There was no agreement to give the men any'money in case of idleness?


Arthur Meighen: No. It is argued that ive in Ontario and Quebec to-day are in a serious condition as respects the coal supply in the immediate future. That has been true to too great a degree, but I do not know that the circumstances to-day are of such immediate and dire peril as might ibe inferred from the remarks of some hon. gentlemen. We are not likely to freeze for want of coal in the first half of the month of June, not, at all events, in Ontario and Quebec. Nevertheless, bituminous coal is a vital necessity to the industries of this country even in summertime. A committee of the Government has had 'the matter in hand. I am not a member of the committee myself, but the minister whom I represent in this discussion, the Hon. Mr. Robertson, is a member. The Minister of Railways is also a member of that committee, and from him particulars as to the work of thalt committee may be given in committee. I may say though, after .speaking iwith the Minister of Labour only lately, that he stated the situation had of recent days been much relieved, and that very considerable shipments of coal had been made and were forthcoming. His own mind seemed to be much more at ease than it had for some weeks on this subject.
References have been made to the duty of the Government to adopt some policy- the outlines of policies that have been given, I am afraid, are rather vague-that will make available for the people of Ontario and Quebec, the coal of Western Canada and of Eastern Canada. It has been urged that we might finance the operators of Alberta in order that there might be

storage of coal from idle seasons that would carry us through the busy seasons. It is also urged that we might bring pressure on the railways to reduce the Tates and thereby make the coal available to the more populated centres of Ontario. Referring to the latter phase first, I do not pretend to be in any way an expert on railway rates; but I am confident that this opinion is sound: that theTe is not very much room for reduction by any amount however small in railway rates in regard to any staple article at the present time. I do not think it is more than the truth to say that there are articles of transport-and coal may be one of them-the more of which the railways carry the less money they make; or rather, I should say, the more money they lose, and that applies to the Canadian National Railways just as much as, if not more than, it applies to the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is in the interest of the railway company just as directly as it is in our interest that they do not have cars travelling empty, and their efforts are designed to see that that condition does not occur, if by any reduction of rates, or by any other means they can profitably have the cars when travelling filled to capacity. The fact of the matter is that it costs more money to bring coal from those fields here than it cost to bring it from other sources. That is the great economic fact. It, of course, does not cost so much more now as it did when coal was much lower in price.
The next fact, which is an important one-indeed, the first statement means nothing except as the second is borne in mind-is that the coal that is nearest at hand is of a quality that cannot be transported, and that which is further away is subject more and more to the freight obstacle which I have defined. Now, those two circumstances together, the quality of the coal and the great distance, have made the economic transport to date impossible, and except by mere payments out of the treasury the Government cannot overcome this basic economic fact. There is coal of semi-anthracite and high bituminous quality in Alberta in almost unlimited quantity, at any rate, unlimited so far as is concerned the needs of Canada for some centuries to come. But to have the coal there and to have it here are two very different things. It is just because it is there and not here that the great difficulty arises; and the size of the market, the volume of consumption within the railway area is so small
that the scale of production is kept down and consequently prices are kept up. The contracted market is the great factor in keeping down the scale of production and therefore keeping narrow the area of consumption. If we had ten times the number of people in Western Canada than we have, then western coal would economically reach much further east than it does to-day, because production would be on such a scale that, being cheaper, the coal could go further and further from the point of origin.
As- to financing the operators, I really do not know that there is anything I could say upon that subject, but I would be rather inclined to think that the trouble v. as not a matter of finance. I know that the Canadian Pacific Railway are large optrators in Alberta and they do not need veiy much help in the way of financing. I am sure that if there is any way by which they can keep mines going the year round and thereby have on hand through the slack season a supply for the busy season they are quite able to finance the operations. Probably there may be others to whom help may be necessary, but so far us I know there has been no application in that respect. Consequently it seems to me likely that this is not one of the fundamental difficulties. The difficulty is rather *a question of cheap production and cheap transport. It is true, as the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Rofob) says, that there is an immense deposit of semi-anthracite coal in the Smoky River region. I cannot recall the number of millions of tons, but it is very high, and it is sufficient to supply all imaginable needs for very many years. But the coal is in the Smoky River district and there are not very many people near the Smoky river, nor, indeed, within many hundred miles of the Smoky river, while there are all kinds of coal mines with large sums of capital invested in them everywhere outside of that district. It is therefore quite easy for the imagination to run riot in relation to a very valuable deposit situate in the Smoky river. Mr. Hoppe and another gentleman, whose name I do not remember, obtained a lease in the regular way some time in the year 1915 or 1916. The terms of the lease were not lived up to by Mr. Hoppe and his partner and it was cancelled by the Department of the Interior in the year 1918, I think, while 1 was in charge of the department. The cancellation, >as should always be the case, came within the purview of the minister, but the granting of leases is made under the regulations, and there is no specific

reference to the minister in any single instance unless special circumstances make that course necessary. These lands, under the regulations, were subsequently granted, without reference to the minister, to a Mr. Barnard .and, I think, Colonel Shillington, although I think the lease was in the name of Mr. Barnard alone. An investigation took place in the Senate following an appeal by the lessees asking for a charter to build a railway into the Smoky River district, and that investigation showed, Or at all events it indicated pretty clearly to me, that those associated with Mr. Barnard had obtained certain advantages to which they had no right in the way of advance information and as a result had obtained the lease. It was clear from the evidence -and I believe the committee so reported- that Mr. Barnard himself had no knowledge of this advance information one way or the other and that his conduct in relation to the lease was honourable in every way. However, by reason of that investigation I felt it. my duty by special Order in Council to cancel that lease also. It was cancelled and that coal area reverted to the Crown and all the acreage included in that lease, and many other acres-I do not recall the number-surrounding that particular area have since that time been specially reserved, not having been opened up for entry. What I have in contemplation is the reservation of that area until it can be economically used by the Canadian National railways. All that one can say yet is that it has been reserved and especially set aside and that no one now can enter upon it. The Smoky river is situate south of Grand Prairie and north of Park Gate, Grand Prairie being on the McArthur line running into the Peace River district and Park Gate being at the junction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian National railways. The Smoky River deposit is situated about half way between these two points-Grand Prairie and Park Gate. I think that ultimately there will be a road necessary to join these two points bringing the agricultural products of the Peace river down to the Smoky River district, joining the Canadian National railway at Park Gate and thence to the Pacific seaboard. There are many who say that this is the natural outlet for the 'products of that territory both mineral and agricultural. But as yet we have not been able to see our way to authorize an investment to enable the Canadian National Railways to build that line. It will necessarily he a most expensive piece of construction and I do not [Mr. Meighen.I
know if at the present time the coal freight traffic alone will be sufficient to warrant the tremendous capital investment necessary. Whether the joint agricultural and coal traffic will warrant it, it will take some one better informed than I am to pronounce upon it. But as yet we have not seen our way to authorize the immediate construction of that line of railway.
I think the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) had a question in his mind as to whether the original lessees of the deposit were fairly treated. The lease was cancelled for the reason that they were in default. They did not comply with the terms of the lease in that they did not pay the rental when it was due and consequently the right of cancellation was in the department. The department in no way went beyond its right in cancelling the lease. It is true that information reached the department that the holders of the
5 p.m. lease were assuming an attitude antagonistic to this country in its war effort and on that account a more strict adherence to the terms of the lease might have been justified but it is sufficient for our purpose to know that the cancellation of the lease was strictly within the powers of the department and that it followed a failure on the part of the lessees to pay the rental for a considerable length of time.
As to the second lease, it was cancelled for the reason that I have given. The lessees contended, and are contending today vigorously, that the cancellation was illegal, but we cannot accept their legal claim on that ground. I think I have said all that is necessary with regard to the Smoky River lease and the prospects of obtaining coal from that source.
It has been alleged that sufficient progress is not being made in the utilization of the lignite deposits of (Saskatchewan and Alberta. Hon. members have stated that the lignite in these deposits must first be carbonized and briquetted before they can be made available for use. I may say that they are not quite accurate in their statements as to the composition of the briquettes. The commission that was formed by my predecessor as Minister of Mines to go into the question of briquetting the lignite and to develop a commercial process if possible, have gone so far as to be assured that the carbonization-that is to say, to give a brief definition, the elimination of the volatile matter, is a practical fact and in their opinion can be carried out on a commercial basis. They have gone far enough

to discover the binders which are required to hold the carbonized lignite together. They have discovered three' such elements, and the binder which they suggest is a consolidation of the whole three. Twice as much of this article is required for the briquetting of western lignite as is required for the briquetting of German lignite. That is the impediment in the way of the commercialization of the briquetting system but it is not deemed to be an insuperable impediment. It transpired that further difficulties were in the way. The commission was capitalized jointly by the Dominion Government and the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Dominion Government furnishing one half of the capital, or $200,000, and the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan each one quarter, or $100,000 each. On the basis of construction costs that obtained in 1917 when the commission was appointed that would have been sufficient to have enabled them to construct their plant. Costs have advanced fifty per cent and a little more; consequently they will require $600,000. They have sent a memorandum to me accordingly and I am in communication with the Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta with a view to their co-operation with us in the same proportion as before in order to provide the necessary additional funds. It is the purpose of the commission, and indeed they have already, I believe, called for tenders, to erect a plant to try out on a large scale the briquetting process in the Estevan district in the province of Saskatchewan. Very considerable progress has indeed been made. It is altogether outside of the mark to say that this subject has in any degree been wanting attention at the hands of the department. It has received the most assiduous attention and of such a nature that very material progress has been made. It is one thing to say " Get a thing done" but it is another thing to be sure that the steps you are taking are scientifically accurate and commercially sound. We believe the progress we have made along the line of the utilization of the western output of lignite coal has been most encouraging. I believe I have covered, at least in as much detail as I have at my command, the various points raised by the hon. gentleman.
I should have made reference to the hon. member for Regina (iMr. Cowan) and the inquiry he has made as to certain deposits of coal operated by Mr. Burns in the foothills of the Rockies. I have no recent information on this subject and what I say is the outcome of an incident that occurred
many months ago but I am pretty sure it is right. I believe Mr. Burns' deposits are not deposits that he obained under the leasing regulations of the present Government. Hon. gentlemen are aware that in 1914 the coal disposition policy of the country was changed. From that date on we no longer gave grants of mineral rights; we gave leases only, and leases upon terms of development and rental and royalty-not always royalty, but usually so. I believe Mr. Burns' deposits at the point referred to were secured under the former practice, and consequently there is no contractual obligation on his part with the Government in regard to development. I do not want hon. members to get the idea that Mr. Burns is withholding development, for I have no reason to think he is. On the contrary, I am inclined to believe the hon. member for Saskatoon is right and that Mr. Burns is doing everything in his power to secure an income on bis investment. But so far as we are concerned I do not think his holdings are leasehold, and consequently we would have no jurisdiction to compel him tO' develop them.


John Allister Currie: Did Mr. Burns ask for
assistance to build those roads?


Arthur Meighen: I am informed by the
Minister of Railways that he has not asked for any. T would not be so bold as to say that he would not accept it.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the second time.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Meighen the House then went into 'Committee of the Whole to consider the Bill.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-Ratification of Orders in Council respecting Director of Coal Operations, etc.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is gratifying to see the evidence otf a dawning consciousness on the part of the Government as to what is owing to Parliament in respect to many matters that heretofore have been carried out by Orders in Council. As I read this section, it is simply to have Parliament authorize the continuance in office of the officer referred to, the Director of Coal Operations, instead of having that authority continued by Order in Council. So far, so good. There is, however, one line in this section which I think might be improved. The section as it stands now reads:
These Orders in Council are hereby ratified and confirmed and continued in force and effect until the end of the next session of Parliament:

I doubt the wisdom of apparently denying Parliament the right to make any change between now and the end of the next session.


Arthur Meighen: It does not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not
actually, but I should think the section might so be worded as to toe more in keeping with what is owing to Parliament. For instance, it might be changed to read:

unless further amended or repealed by Parliament shall continue in force and effect until the end of the next session.


Arthur Meighen: That goes without saying. Parliament is always supreme. If nothing is done in the meantime these powers, duties, and rights cease at the end of the next session. Of course, Parliament this session can amend this legislation, but it would be surplusage to say so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree with the statement of the minister. But as the section stands it does seem to be restricting the wishes of Parliament.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If anything should
hinge upon the statement that these Orders in Council shall continue in effect to the end of the next session, would it not be a breach of faith on our part to afterwards make a change before the expiration of the time stated? Supposing a man invested capital in business in connection with the matters mentioned in these Orders in Council, he would rest upon the assurance declared here that nothing will be disturbed until the end of the next session of Parliament. In the event of our taking action before the expiration of the time stated, such a man, if his interests were prejudiced, would have the strongest possible argumen in pleading that after this declaration he had good reason to believe that nothing would be done to interfere with those Orders in Council.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think any one would stake any money in business on the theory that these Orders in Council are stated to remain in effect until the end of the next session, come what may. He certainly would not do so if he first sought advice from a good Scotch lawyer like my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). My hon. friend should read the last clause of the section:
Provided, however, that the Governor in Council shall have power to' repeal and cancel all or any ot the said Orders-in-Council if at' any time he deems that the same, are no longer required.

That is necessary, for the Governor in Council could not repeal any of these orders unless power to do so was conferred by the legislation; but, of course, Parliament can take action at any time. However, here is specific notice to everybody that these Orders in Council will remain in effect unless cancelled by the Governor in Council or until Parliament sees fit to repeal or amend them. That is all any one has a right to rely on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why then make the
statement at all that those orders shall continue in force until the end of the next session of Parliament? I think the language is unusual, and I cannot recall such a statement ever appearing in our legislation before.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, there are many instances, and I will give a few in a moment. Before I do so, however, let me deal with this other point. Some date has to be fixed for the termination of these orders or else they are in effect permanently, and that we do not want. These are not the initial legislation of Parliament, these are Orders in council, and they fail now by reason of the War Measures Act, but it is in the interests of all concerned that they should remain in effect for a time at all events, and then perhaps legislation will take their place. Returning to the point mentioned by my hon. friend, similar language was used in the case-of the newsprint control. The Orders in Council that gave the Commissioner, Mr. Pringle, his powers were continued until a certain date which was fixed in the legislation; I am not sure, but I think it was stated as " the end of the next session of Parliament." Then also there are many statutes which empower the Governor in Council to make regulations, and where those regulations are of major importance it has been the practice to provide that they shall be laid on the table of the House within so many days after the House opens at the following session. Unless we confirm them in the meantime by resolution or by legislation, they die at the end of that session. That has been the case in several instances. This just follows the newsprint precedent and these others that have been the law. In the Interior Department there are certain regulations that can only be made with that term of life. All that we are asking here is that Parliament continue these orders until the end of the next session so that at the next session Parliament can exercise its will with relation to the whole subject.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree that it is desirable to set a definite date in this regard, but leaving it unitil the end of next session is leaving it to an indefinite date. It certainly does appear to imply that the Government has some reason for not wishing Parliament to take this matter up during the next session; otherwise I see no object in providing that the order shall be made until the end of the next session.
Mr. M.EIGHEN: What does my hon. friend suggest?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was about to suggest that it might be well to say "until the end of the present fiscal year." Whatever is necessary in the way of appropriation in this connection will be appropriated for the present fiscal year, and if it be desired to carry on this office beyond that time there will have to be an appropriation for .another fiscal year. I should think that the substitution olf the words "present fiscal year" for the words, "next session of Parliament" would be in every way advisable.


Arthur Meighen: If the Bill were being introduced in the first instance here, I .am not sure that I would not agree to the proposal. Of course, Parliament is sure to meet before the end of the fiscal year, and by hurrying the matter we Could get through both Houses, perhaps, such Bill as Parliament .might deem necessary then. But the Bill has passed the Senate, and I do not think it worth while .altering it and sending it back to the Senate for that purpose. The difference is simply this: Here Parliament will have all next session to consider whether o.r not action should be taken. If we think no action should be taken and that we should revert back to the conditions which obtained prior to the war, we simply do not need to do anything; if we think action should be taken, then we have .all the next session to take it in. If I accept my hon. friend's suggested amendment, it would mean that whatever action we did take we would have to take before the 31st of March. As all members know, the time of the session prior to that date is pretty much occupied with the debate on the Address and with other functions of Parliament that precede the enactment of concrete .and specific legislation. If we adopted this suggestion we would very likely be only hurrying ourselves at the next session with no very great object in view.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to say a word with regard to what the minister has said about the possibility of legislation not being much under way by the 31st of March next year. We on this side feel very strongly .about the matter of granting the Government progress Estimates, so to speak-voting millions before the Estimates have been considered at all by the House. We met the Government this year and voted it two month's supply. I understand it is altogether probable that we shall be asked to vote another tw.o months' supply in the course of the next day or so. We are getting away altogether from control by Parliament over public expenditures in permitting the Government to feel that it can bring on the session at 'any time in the year that best suits its convenience and then rush through legislation without giving ample opportunity for discussion of the Estimates. If I do not misinterpret the feeling of hon. gentlemen on this side, I may say that we shall not be as ready a year hence to make a concession of that kind to the Government should this Government be in office at the time. I might as well say that now as say it at some other time. Parliament ought to be called earlier; Parliament ought to be called before the Christmas holidays. The fiscal year was changed to end on the -31st of March so as to enable a few meetings of the House to be held before Christmas and the business of Parliament to be got well under way before the spring. If, as a result of the refusal of the Opposition to grant supply to the Government until opportunity has been had for the full and free discussion of these matters, business will be carried on in a more effective way and with greater control by Parliament over expenditures, we on this side will certainly take that position.
Now, the only objection that the minister has raised to the amendment I have suggested is that the Bill did not originate in this House and that it would have to go back to the other House for amendment. Well, that again is the fault of the Government in having the Minister of Labour in the Senate when he should be in this House. If there is one portfolio more than another that should be represented in the House of Commons it is the portfolio of Labour, and just because the Government have found it impossible to obtain a seat for the minister so that he might hold his position in this House is no reason why -we should not exercise every precaution with a view to protecting the public interest that it is within our .power to exercise. I do not see why we should give the Government

power under any Act to continue any office beyond the time for which appropriation for it will be voted by Parliament, even if we do so only by implication. If the minister is not prepared to accept the suggestion, I myself will move that we substitute for the words "session of Parliament," in line 15 of the Bill, the words, "present fiscal year." I think that the minister will see the reasonableness of the suggestion, and I hope that he will accept it.


Arthur Meighen: I am not able to follow the hon. member. The fiscal year did end on the 30t-h June. In 1909 it was made to end on the 31st of March. The leader of the Opposition tells us that the change was made in order that Parliament would have some time (before the fiscal year ended to conduct its work. One would think that Parliament would have had more time with the fiscal year ending 30th June than with the fiscal year ending 31st March.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is -quite wrong in that. What I said was that the time was changed so as to enable Parliament to meet before the Christmas holidays and to get through a great deal of its business by the spring. That was the thought I had in mind. The change to 31st March was to- enable Parliament to ibe called in the fall rather than in January or February and to get through with its business by the beginning of June.


Arthur Meighen: There was nothing to
hinder Parliament being called in the fall when the fiscal year ended in June. -Anyway, it was changed in 1909, and on account of the very many other duties Parliament has to perform since the change was made, it has frequently -been difficult to get the Estimates through before the end of the fiscal year. If the hon. member will look back to the years 1910 and 1911 I think he will see that the Government of which he was then a member had to ask for interim appropriations in those two years-. Why, in one year the Budget was not delivered- by his colleague (Mr. Fielding) until the 26th day of June. So that though hon. members opposite may intend to be very reluctant to grant us any Supply, they will not get very much encouragement for that attitude in the history of the two years that they laboured under the same difficulties that we labour under now. However, that has nothing to do with this point. This Bill merely asks that these orders -stand until the end of next session so that when Parliament meets it may choose its own time to alter them-or to let them die; for that is what will happen if- Parliament takes no

action. What has the fiscal year to do with it? Nothing at all. The end of the session has to do with it because that is the end of Parliament's labours. Why should not Parliament have the whole of the session within which to decide? Why should we seek now to hurry Parliament? If we keep forcing Parliament to take up this Bill and that -Bill near the first of the session, we will make it just that much more difficult to get to the Estimates, and we shall be so much more likely to have to ask for an interim appropriation. We should simply be putting difficulties in our own way. The Bill is logically worded now; there is no principle at stake at all. What is the difference? Why should Parliament not have next session to decide -on its action?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
asks a question -and II will answer it. The minister says: "What has the fiscal year to do with the matter?" It has everything to do with it unless we go on the assumption that Parliament has simply to carry out the will of the Government.
Mr. M'EIGHEN:	It has nothing to do
with coal operations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Director
of iCoal Operations must have an appropriation from Parliament to carry on hie work.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think he has
any appropriation. If he has it is very small.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister surely knows that he has an appropriation.
Mr. ME-IGHiEN: I presume he hae a salary.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly he has.


Arthur Meighen: That has nothing to do with the principle of this Bill, which is whether Parliament desires' that condition of affairs to continue, and Parliament should have next session to decide whether it desires that condition of affairs to continue or not We should not say now that Parliament should in this respect deal with this matter before the 31st of March. There is no more reason for dealing with this matter before the 31st March than for dealing before the 31st March with any other matter that comes before Parliament. Why should we force Parliament to take this action in this case?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The only way
it is possible to ensure the Government (bringing down necessary legislation is the obligation upon the Government to seek appropriations for the purpose. If this clause

is allowed to remain ae it is, and we now assent to the powers, duties and rights of the Director of Coal Operations being continued until the end of the next session of Parliament, we shall be told by the minister as soon as we hare got past the present fiscal year, that at this particular session we passed an (Act continuing his rights and powers to the end of the session and that the Government have continued employing this particular officer in the position in which he now is, notwithstanding the fact that no moneys have been voted for his particular office. The minister knows as well as any other hon. member that the powers, duties and rights of the Director of Coal Operations should not be continued a day beyond the period for which Parliament appropriates money for the purpose, and he also knows that the present appropriation will expire at the end of this fiscal year, because we do not appropriate beyond one particular year. For that reason, I think we should seek to make our legislation conform with what, in the matter of control of public expenditures, is in the public interest. I would move that this clause be amended by striking out the words "next session of Parliament" in line 15 on page 1 of the Bill and substituting therefor the words "present fiscal year."
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-ratification of orders issued by director:
Arthur Meighen: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it is not
carried. This clause will not carry if it is possible to prevent its carrying. We are asked by this clause to ratify and confirm orders of the Director of Coal Operations, although we do not know what a single one of these orders is. In the schedule attached to this Bill there is a list of order numbers, and I do not believe any hon. member, including the minister himself, can tell us at this moment what these orders are. Before the minister asks us to ratify these orders, I will make way for him to tell us what they are.
Mr. MEIG'HEN:	I can give my hon.
friend pretty generally the nature of these orders; I do not suppose he would expect me to have them by rote. These are orders fixing conditions of labour, hours of labour, methods of compensation, a system of differentials, prices of coal and methods of payment. I think that would cover them all. They apply from time to time, just as Mr. Armstrong, who. is the director, afteT
hearing both sides in every case felt to be essential and, in his judgment, the fairest that could be done, and both sides have aoquiesced in these orders. So far as I know there is nothing now in dispute between the parties. I do not suppose any hon. member would want to peruse these orders in detail any more than he would want to peruse various regulations of that kind which must necessarily be made by an executive, whether the executive is the Governor in Council or some other person, from time to time, if there is to be any government carried on at all. If there is any special order which the hon. member would like to see, or if he would like to see them all, copies can be got for him; but I do not think he, as leader of the Opposition, is going to >put himself in the position of delaying merely for the sake oif delay. These are orders made by the Director of Coal Operations as an arbitrator between parties who, from time to time, have different disputes, and both sides have acquiesced in these orders. I would not think that Parliament, after such acquiescence, would want to come in and seek to modify and thereby revive the dispute. That would be all that could be done if we seek in any way to modify or to leave out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister is quite right when he says that I would not wish to delay for the sake of delay. That is not the question that is to the fore at the moment. What we are being asked by the ministry to do is to ratify a number of orders which, as the minister has just stated, relate to prices, to regulations on hours and wages of labour, etc., all of which are issued by an individual. We have only the minister's word that there is apparent agreement in the matter. If there is apparent or substantial agreement, why ask Parliament to agree to this? It is not the practice, where orders are made by an officer in the performance of his duties, to have those orders brought down to Parliament for ratification. It is assumed that the officer has power to make the regulations when that power is given to him by Parliament. If he is acting honestly and carrying out his duties consistently, there is no need for ratification. The only purpose I can see in asking Parliament to ratify a number of orders, none of which we have seen, is that by chance somewhere there is something which the ministry is not certain about and which they would like to have Parliament confirm. It is a great mistake for Parliament to be asked to legis-

late on anything in the dark and particularly on any matter which affects the relations of capital, labour, and the public in the relations of industry. We have here the question of hours and wages of labour, the question of prices paid for coal by consumers, the whole relations of capital to labour; orders to the number of over a hundred are issued by an officer, and we are asked to confirm and ratify those orders without seeing or knowing anything about them at all. If there is something amiss that the minister wants to have put right, let him tell us what it is, and if he gives us a satisfactory explanation, we shall confirm the action of this officer. But it is going too far to ask Parliament to confirm every one of these orders without any knowledge of what they are.


Arthur Meighen: I have heard of nothing ajmiss that requires any special ratification.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then why
ask for ratification?


Arthur Meighen: The matter is as plain as anything could be. These orders when made were all valid. They, perhaps, did not suit either side, and unless they had that validity, some parties on either side might not have lived up to them, and consequently the orders would have been valueless. If Some did not live up to them, none could have done so. But as valid orders, they were acquiesced in by obedience on the part of both sides. With the fall of the War Measures Act, their efficacy vanishes. At all events the Justice Department takes the ground that they are very very doubtful, and consequently we have adopted the policy of legislative revivification in each case. That is what we are doing here. If they had not fallen they would have been in effect anyway, and would have been actually acted upon by both parties. Certainly the whole public is affected by the continued operation or the stoppage of the mines, but the parties immediately affected by the terms of the orders are the operators on the one hand, and the miners on the other. Now we ask that orders of that kind affecting immediately them only, settling disputes between them, in the settlement of which they acquiesce, orders that had validity during the currency of the War Measures Act, he continued in that validity until Parliament next session decides whether it wants them longer continued or not. I think all we need to know is that it is necessary now that the orders be continued. Otherwise there would be only

friction and confusion in District No. 18. I do not think the executive, even a smaller body, would venture for a minute, after an order 'had been acquiesced in, to go to work and amend it saying: "We do not like that order; it is true you heard the case and settled it as between the parties and they acquiesced, but we know better than you; we will alter that order, and you must go to work under that altered order." The hon. member suggests that though the executive would not think of doing that, Parliament might do it and say: "You settled that order between the parties, and the parties acquiesced in it and are working under it; all is peace; but now we are going to change that order." Is that conceivable? I do not think it is. So to ask that the orders be brought down here and he examined is merely for the sake of delay, although the hon. member may not so intend it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am absolutely opposed to ratifying any order I have not seen that relates to a controversy between capital and labour. If the parties are in agreement, there is no necessity whatever for coming to Parliament for ratification of an order that has been made by an officer who has power to make that order.


Arthur Meighen: Though the parties may be in agreement, just as soon as there is no validity, is not somebody going to break the agreement? Of course there will be someone to do it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly. The minister has the Tory point of view that all you have to have is the bludgeon of legislation or something of that kind to hold over the heads of labour to make them obey any orders that are given them. This compulsory method of dealing with industrial questions is not the method that is likely to produce good results in the long run.


Arthur Meighen: Who is talking about compulsory methods?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister himself is talking about them-


Arthur Meighen: You are dreaming.
Mr. MACKENZIE	KING:-when	he
speaks of having Parliament's authority for this or that. What he should be doing, instead of asking this Parliament to ratify a lot of orders and make agreements compulsory that ought to be voluntary in their nature, or else not exist at all, is to seek to get back on the statute book some of the laws for the freedom of the press and

freedom of assembly -which he has kept off the statutes up to the present time. I would ask the minister to bring these orders down before he asks the House to consider this section further. I think it is a proper request. I do not think we ought to be asked to go on with the legislation until we see what we are asked to do. Does the minister refuse to 'bring down the orders?


Arthur Meighen: I am prepared to have them all brought down to-morrow if there are other hon. members who would rather see these orders before proceeding further. I do not think it is vital at all. It appeals to me as a worthless delay, but if hon. members want to delay I am not going to go in the face of any substantial sentiment in that direction.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister may not think that the request of the leader of the Opposition, speaking in the name of the Opposition, amounts to anything, and if he likes to proceed in that high-handed and arbitrary manner he is quite at liberty to do so. I would like nothing better than to see him refuse to bring these orders down and get his following, who are ready to vote for anything he asks them to vote for, to support a series of orders, not one of which they have seen. I would like nothing better.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member might keep control of his temper a little better. I did not speak in the name of the Government in any way; I -was simply giving my opinion. I did not know, and I do not know yet, that every hon. member on that side of the House feels with him any more than I know that every hon. member on this side of the House feels with me. I put myself in the hands of the committee. I do not think there is anything in the hon. member's request, but if it is the opinion of any substantial body of this committee I am quite prepared to defer the further discussion of this section.


James Alexander Robb: Is it possible that all the followers and supporters of the minister are now prepared to vote for a series of resolutions and orders concerning the price and hours of labour without knowing what they are voting for? Surely his supporters are not so subservient as that.
Mr. -COW'AN:	These Orders in Council
have been in effect a year or two and have given satisfaction to everybody. That is evidence enough for me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are not
talking about Orders in Council at all.


Walter Davy Cowan: The Orders that have been passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What we are discussing are orders given by the Director of Coal Operations, not one of which my hon. friend has seen or can tell us anything about.


Walter Davy Cowan: But I have seen the effect of them-and that is the important thing- and it has been mighty satisfactory to us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to admit that orders that have been given at a particular time during the war may have had their beneficial effects, but it is one thing to pass an order to meet a particular situation and another thing to say that that order shall govern for a longer or indefinite period of time without giving the parties who are affected by it any ap-portunity to be heard.


Walter Davy Cowan: I would hate conditions
to be upset out there at the present time. We have been getting along mighty well. The orders have evidently been entirely satisfactory, so why not let them continue until things get better settled?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If Parliament takes an arbitrary-and high-handed attitude and says that certain orders shall have the effect, of law and that men who do not obey them will be violating the laws of this country, if that is the way you are going to treat the working men- of British Columbia or any other province I believe you will not have much rest out in the West or anywhere else.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Those orders that have been passed before there was any question of the validity of the Orders in Council surely do not require any ratification at oui hands. There may be same orders that have been passed since the war ceased and the validity of the Orders in Council might be questioned, but no ratification at all is required for the others, and I think the minister should distinguish between them. I have a very clear recollection of the legislation that was passed last year in connection with Commissioner Pringle's operations regarding newsprint. I took the ground at that time that legislation such as this was not necessary. The Bills were in charge of the then Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) and he agreed with me that the legislation was unnecessary but he said what the minister has just said, that the Department of Justice had decided otherwise, and he was therefore having the legislation put through. There must have bee'J



a period when there was no question of the validity of the Orders in Council, and perhaps that is true of three-quarters of the orders that we are asked to ratify. There may never have been any doubt as to their validity. I would not have so much objection to the minister asking us to ratify what has been done since the end of the war, and since the validity of the Orders in Council have been questioned, provided we have an opportunity of seeing at least some samples of these orders. I do not think it is fair to ask us to pass legislation when we do not know just what we are doing. Some of these Orders in Council may have been passed recently, and the workmen have no particular knowledge of their provisions. If they have not been^ tested by practical application, I think it would toe unfortunate for us to pass an Act confirming those Orders in Council, or orders made by vitue of them, for they might toe altogether unsatisfactory. Whether it is convenient or otherwise to the minister, I am sure the hon. gentleman will see the force and logic of the stand we take, and I do think that we should see .samples of those orders so that every man on either side of the House, before committing himself in regard to this legislation, may know just what he is being asked to do.


Arthur Meighen: I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Department of the Interior-salaries, $1,221,-OO'O.
['I think we ought to have, an opportunity of asking the Minister of Public Works a few questions on this item before it carries. Questions have been asked with regard to the calling for tenders, for instance. This is really an item that belongs to the Public Works Department and it can only be voted in connection with these other items under the head of "Generally."\nItem stands.\nProgress reported.']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Government has .still to give us details'of the Estimates in regard to Civil Government. I do not think we should proceed with this item.


Arthur Meighen: Very well; we will go on to the Soldiers' Settlement Estimates. Item stands.
Soldiers' Settlement Estimate-
Salaries of Board of Commis-
[DOT] sioners	 $	17,000
Advances to soldiers settling upon the land and cost of administering The Soldiers' Settlement Acts of 1917 and 1919, including clerical assistance	 5 0,000,'COO1


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister give the committee some explanation of these items?


Arthur Meighen: This matter was under consideration for nearly the whole of the afternoon on March 7th and a full explanation was given of the division of the moneys. The first item is for salaries, $7,000 and two amounts of $5,000 each. The sum of $50,000,000 consists of the following items:
Expenses, supervising settlers, land appraisals, office contingencies,
travelling and living expenses,
etc	 $	6 00,0'O'O
Legal services and disbursements..	150;000
Advisory Committees	 50,000
Training centres, maintenance and general expenses including board prospective settlers, purchase
stock, etc	 150,000
Printing and stationery	 50,000
Advertising	 20,000
Pay and Allowances	 100,000
Salaries	 800,000
Miscellaneous and unforseen expenses	 80,000
Loans	 4S,000,000


Mr. PARDEE:: Do these loans cover land alone, or do they include cattle and implements?


Arthur Meighen: They cover all. We hope to provide altogether for between fifteen and sixteen thousand men. The loans average from $3,000 h>
$3,500, inclusive of stock and implements.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What is the average advance per acre?


Arthur Meighen: I will give it by provinces :
Average cost per acre.
Prince Edward Island	 22.42
Nova Scotia	 21.40
New Brunswick	 16.69
Quebec	 24.42
Ontario	 33.02
Manitoba	 22.31
Saskatchewan-
Regina	 18.53
Saskatoon	 17.32
Prince Albert	 17.98
(Average for the	province)	 18.00
Alberta-
Edmonton	  17.90
Calgary	 18.38
(Average for the	province)	 18.13
British Columbia-
Vancouver	 49.55
Victoria	 76.50
(Average for the province)	 53.80
For the whole Dominion the average cost per acre is $27.58 and the average acreage 140.5.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is the average size of the farms held by the men?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Mr. ROSS:: In the statement which has been submitted there is an item of $800,000 for salaries. Is that in connection with the work of the board, and for wages to employees?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


James Hamilton Ross: There is another item of $600,000. What is that for?


Arthur Meighen: I could lecture for a
long time on how few employees there are. Indeed, we are frequently criticised that we have not enough. It is very hard to get a basis to compare that with any other department. On a comparison of the number of men served by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment it would only be a mere fraction. Of course the Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is taking care of disabled men while the Land Settlement Board is taking care of men who are not disabled. We have 15,000 odd, or nearly 20,000 soldiers, to visit and supervise. One of the complaints dealt with by the Civil Re-establishment Committee during the last two weeks has been that our men do not visit them often enough. The hon. member will see that if we have nearly
20,000	men to locate and to follow in their farming operations from end to end of Canada we need some staff supervisors. I could give the exact number of each class hut 1,500 is a very small number of men, including stenographers, and clerks of every kind in all the offices, and we have seventeen centres throughout the Dominion, and including the supervisors, valuators and so on. That number does not include the loan committees or advisory boards but includes every one else.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: How many advisory
boards are there?


Arthur Meighen: There were seventeen,
one for each of our offices.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is that for the whole
Dominion?


Arthur Meighen: For the whole Dominion. ITheie is not that number now. We have merged our advisory boards in our own executives at certain points, where we felt that we had an executive strong and capable enough to supersede them. We have done that at such places as Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal and St. John.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Where in Ontario?


Arthur Meighen: In Ontario we still have an advisory board at Toronto.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Just the one?
203J


Arthur Meighen: Just the one. We had two or three in Quebec but we have none at Montreal now. We still have an office there. We have an office at Sherbrooke and I believe we have an advisory board at Sherbrooke and one at Quebec.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does the minister think
that one advisory board is sufficient for Ontario? Taking the territory east, west and north of Toronto, can one advisory board discharge the duties properly? In Western Ontario there is a good deal of land not actually vacant but not cultivated to any greater extent than being used for pasturage. Does not the minister think that it would be wise to have an advisory board in Western Ontario- that would encourage soldiers to make application for land of this character in that particular part of the province? Does the minister not think it would perhaps encourage applicants if there were a board closer at hand?


Arthur Meighen: The expense of equipping an office is very great and you must have an office where you have your advisory board. If you could have merely an advisory board at an outside point the expense would not be so great but you cannot do that.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why could you not have an office?


Arthur Meighen: You -are going to run off the track entirely if you have an advisory board, say, in North Bay and no office there in direct contact with the head office here. You must have your office wherever you have your advisory board. If not the inconvenience would be very great. In fact a man would have no, advantage at all unless he had an office with which he was going to do business after the advisory board had made its recommendation and from which he could obtain assistance. The chairman informs me that it would be quite impracticable to establish another office as the cost of an office is very high. We are getting on pretty well in Ontario. Our office in Toronto is a good one. I would like the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) to call at the Toronto office. I do not care how early in the morning he gets there, he will find them open and hard at work. It is a most efficient office.


James Hamilton Ross: How much has this Toronto office cost?


Arthur Meighen: I can get that.


Mr.   BOSS@: I would like to know how these solicitors are chosen, from whom they are ehoisen, on whose advice, what fees they are paid and why only solicitors living in Toronto are paid to search land titles all over the province of Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: I can get the figures of the cost of each office. The solicitors are appointed by the Department of Justice. They are returned men in every case, and they employ agents at different points in the country.


James Hamilton Ross: I do not think they do that.
Mr. MIEIGHiEN: Their bills are taxed by the Justice Department just the same as the bills for any other legal services. We adopt the scale of the Justice Department. We formerly had very lively controversies with some of the lawyers who thought they were not being sufficiently paid but we are departing from that system just as fast as we can and as a consequence we are reducing our legal expenses by a percentage that would almost startle the hon. gentleman. We iare getting them down to a quarter of what it cost under the old system.


James Hamilton Ross: Will my hon. friend let me know when he brings in his other items what the solicitors in Toronto were paid during the last fiscal year in connection with this year?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
At Six o'clock the committee tooik recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at Eight o'clock, Mr. Steele in the Chair.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Steele):: When
the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering item 275, Soldiers' Land Settlement, $50,017,000.


Mir. ROWELL:: In the absence, Mr. Chairman, of the Minister of the Interior, who will not be able to ibe here for a short tiime, I beg to move that further consideration of this item be postponed, and that we take up item 271 relating to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $4,674,066.40.
Mr. CAHILL:: Was there a motion to
go into Supply on this item?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes, Mr. Chairman,
there was a motion to go into Supply on this item some three weeks ago-the night

we discussed the appointment of a Canadian representative at Washington; and at the request of my hon. friends opposite further consideration of the item was postponed.


Frank S. Cahill: Will the minister explain why it is necessary to increase the Mounted Police and distribute them all over the Dominion?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that the vote proposed is not an increase on last year's vote. On the contrary, it is a decrease of that vote. But I am very glad to give my hon. friend information with reference to the position and work of the Force. The Act which was passed last year providing for the amalgamation of the Dominion Police and the Royal Northwest Mounted Police under the name of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been brought into force by proclamation since last session. That Act provided that the headquarters of the force should he moved from Regina to Ottawa, and on the 1st February, this year, the headquarters staff took up its work in this city. On the same day the amalgamation was completed, so that from the 1st February we have had one federal police force discharging its duties from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the international boundary to the Arctic circle.
The strength of the force at present is 74 officers and 1,734 other ranks, making a total of 1,808; that is inclusive of the Dominion Police who are now members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. My hon. friend has asked as to the duties of the force. In the first place, it is the only police force responsible for seeing that the law is truly administered and enforced in the Northwest Territories, in the Yukon Territory and in the Dominion National Parke. In addition the force discharges important duties for all branches of the Federal Government in seeing that laws are duly observed in which the Federal Government is particularly interested by reason off those laws relating to the public revenue or to the other matters which I shall mention in a moment or two. First, in reference to the Department of Justice. If any Federal Government property is stolen, if any cheques on Government funds are forged,-any crimes in which the Government of Canada is directly interested-the case is turned over by the Department of Justice to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for investigation and the bringing plf the criminals to trial. Then, the members of the force on the inter-

national boundary have co-operated in the past, and are still co-operating, with the Customs officials in preventing smuggling. They are also working with the Department of Inland Revenue. This branch of the work, I have to admit, has somewhat increased during the past year or two.


Frank S. Cahill: From what cause?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The growth of illicit stills in certain districts.


Frank S. Cahill: The outcome of my hon. friend's legislation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend knows,
like every other intelligent man, that wherever we have legislation dealing with the importation and sale of liquor there is a natural tendency to seek to evade the law by the establishment of illicit stills.


Mr. WHITE:: Is the business of illicit
stills increasing of decreasing?
. Mr. ROWELL:	At the present time I
cannot give my hon. friend any information on that point,


John Hampden Burnham: It is at a standstill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -but the Mounted Police are co-operating with the Department of Inland Revenue in preventing the violation of the law in connection with the establishment of illicit stills. They also co-operate with the Department of Indian Affairs in the enforcing of law on the Indian reserves, particularly the reserves in Western Canada. On almost every western reserve I think there is a detachment of the Mounted Police, and I am glad to say that the mere presence of members of the Force is in itself a guarantee that the law will be observed, for there is no class in the community which has a.higher respect for the Mounted Police than have the Indians of Western Canada. From the time the Mounted Police went into Western Canada the Indians learned that they could trust the Force to deal fairly with them, and that the laws would be honestly and impartially enforced as between the Indian and the white man. The presence of the Mounted Police, therefore, in connection with the Indian reserves is very valuable in Western -Canada.
The Mounted Police work with the Department of Immigration and Colonization on the international boundary during the past year of two has been of very considerable importance. Owing to the action taken in the United 'States with a view to deporting men whom they consider undesirable, there has been a natural tendency on the part of -many of these men to seek an asylum in Canada, and for the protection of Canada against the coming in of men who would not be desirable, the Immigration Department have the assistance of the Royal Canadian. Mounted Police. The Force assist the Department of the Secretary of State in connection with an important branch of its work. Where application is made by aliens for naturalization in Canada, particularly in certain sections of the country, the application is referred to the Mounted Police for investigation, and they report on the facts of the case to the Secretary of State so that he may have full and accurate information in connection with all such applications. More recently -and this is a little departure crom the general work that I have mentioned-the Department of Agriculture has asked the co-operation of the Mounted Police in enforcing the regulations which the department has recently adopted to prevent the spread of mange in Southern Alberta.
The foregoing will give the committee a general idea of the scope of the woTk of the Mounted Police in insisting upon the enforcement of federal laws. In addition to this, they constitute a reserve force available at the request of the provinces-and only at such request-to assist in the maintenance of law and order where the provincial authorities themselves are unequal to the task. Where the provincial authorities request co-operation and assistance for the preservation of law and order, the Mounted Police, as a federal force, is available to render that assistance. I think hon. members will agree that that assistance should be rendered 'by a police force rather than by the militia. I believe that in this-matter -that would be the general judgment of the people off Canada.
Mr. TWEBDIE-:	Have any cases arisen
where requests for such assistance have been made?
IMr. ROWELL:	Different cases have
arisen, the most important case, of course, being the occasion when, -at the request of the Attorney -General of Manitoba, accompanied by the request of the Mayor of Winnipeg, the Mounted Police took part in the suppression of the riot which occurred in Winnipeg last summer. From other provinces also requests have come for the assistance of the Mounted Police, but the cases have not been of grave public moment as was the case that I have just mentioned. This ibridf statement will give the committee an idea otf tlhe (work of the Mounted Police.
Mr. CAMPBELL.: Do the Mounted Police act in connection with the Criminal Code

in a province where there are provincial police?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. In any province in connection with any matter outside the federal laws to which I have made reference *they act only on the express request of the Attorney General of the province. In the absence of that request no action is taken by the Mounted Police. That is our understanding with all the provinces, because the provinces are responsible for the administration of criminal law. They should not be relieved from that .esponsi-bility, and there is no intention on the part of this Government to relieve them from it. Therefore, if there is, in a given province, any defect in the administration of the criminal law, that province alone is responsible for it.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: If, in a place where
Mounted Police were stationed and there were no provincial police, an infraction of the Criminal Code took place, would the Mounted Police ignore the matter altogether?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In such a case it would be the duty of any ordinary civilian to assist in the detection of crime; to that extent it would be the duty of the Mounted Police officer to do so. But in respect to any offence such as my hon. friend has mentioned, no duty rests up the Mounted Police officer that does not rest equally on all other citizens in the particular community who have knowledge of the facts. I can quite conceive that my hon. friend might say: Well there is a policeman there; a crime has been committed; should he not undertake' the work of arrest? But if that were done you would at once come in conflict with the provincial authorities who are responsible; you would either interfere with their work or relieve them from a measure of their responsibility. So the principle I have indicated is not departed from in the administration of the law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When the
Mounted Police assist the provincial authorities on the request of the Attorney General of the province, is any proportion of the expense borne by the province, or is it met exclusively by the 'Dominion treasury?


Newton Wesley Rowell: So far, it has been met
exclusively by the Dominion treasury. There is very little increased expense in that respect, because the force is in existence; their pay and subsistence must continue whether they are assisting the pro-

vincial forces or not. The Federal Government, therefore, has not felt called upon ito demand compensation of the provinces in such cases.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In cases where the militia are called in to assist, the expenses are met, are they not, by the local or provincial authorities?


Newton Wesley Rowell: When members of the
militia, composed of men engaged in their ordinary occupations, are called out for such service they must be paid, and as that is a new charge upon the federal exchequer, the province that requests their assistance pays the costs. That is the general principle, as I understand it.
Mr. MACKENZIE. KING: Does my hon. friend not think that it might be advisable to adopt that principle, at least to a certain extent, with regard to this police force? It seems to me that unless that is done the provincial authorities may find it convern ient to use the police to the exclusion of their own forces whenever it suits their convenience.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If we discover any tendency of that kind I think it would be a wise thing to do, because Parliament would not be justified in relieving the provinces from the responsibility that properly rests upon them for the administration of law and the preservation of peace within their respective territories. We have not found, however, up to date, any serious difficulty in that respect; the demands that have been made for assistance are not numerous.


Mr. MORPHY:: As I understand it, there seems to be fear of clashing jurisdiction as between the Ontario-we will say- or Quebec, police, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think I heard the minister say that only upon the request of the Attorney General of a province would the Mounted Police act. Well, I can conceive of a situation where a crime has been committed ; the Mounted Police officer gets word of it, but he has no responsibility in the matter; he has no authority to act.
It would be his duty, I presume, to remain silent, quiet. If that be the case, because of the Mounted Policeman lacking in the right to be a preserver of the peace, knowing that his duty was not to interfere with provincial officers and being doubtful about trespassing beyond his duty, the crime goes unpunished probably on account of the time within which some police officer who has the duty, would learn of the crime. It seems to me, that, especially in the East,

where the Mounted Policemen are quartered, they would in many cases, be much more likely to be on the alert for criminal practices than some of our provincial police. If the full services which these men can render are to be taken advantage of, some arrangement should be made short of the Attorney General's request for their co-operation, so that the very fact that the Canadian Mounted Police are in our midst *would be an additional safety to the public against crime, providing there was an understanding with the provinces that they should accept the kind offices of the Mounted Police,-if you like to put it that way-and permit them to have carte blanche to pursue and arrest a criminal and to do the work a policeman would have to do in any well-organized community. I do not know how seriously the Canadian Mounted Police are involved in arduous duties; but many, I think, would like an opportunity to do a little more at times, rather than do a little less. I do not think any extra expense would be entailed if this Government were to approach the Provincial Governments with a suggestion that, while the Canadian Mounted Police are intended for Indian Affairs, forgery, as one federal crime, enforcement of law along the international boundary, and such like, still there are many crimes which do not fall within these categories and in which the Mounted Police would be very useful. It would be very proper for the Government to approach the Provincial Governments and say: We offer you the services of these men for the better order of the community; in that way probably showing to the country at large the excellent services-excellent, I believe, beyond those of the average provincial police-that these men could render to the country at large.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have nothing but
words of commendation for the excellent services rendered by the Northwest Mounted Police since its creation in the Northwest. Subject to correction, however, I do not see why the Northwest Mounted Police was removed from the West do the East. It is true that, under ordinary circumstances, I would understand that anything which is dependent upon political control should be centralized at Ottawa; but the very name of the Northwest Mounted Police suggests that it is a body of men organized to maintain law and order in the far districts of the West. For over forty years, that body has rendered most valuable assistance, and the name and the uniform of the Mounted
Police meant that law and order were under their safeguard and protection. In fact, the name of the Northwest Mounted Police has reverberated beyond our Canadian shores, and any one who travels abroad hears quite frequently of the efficiency of that body. One has only to read the reports published from year to year by the Superintendent of the Mounted Police to know the valuable services rendered by that body in the past. Whenever I meet those fine young fellows walking with a jaunty air on the streets of Ottawa, I ask myself why they have been taken from the plains of the West where they represented law and order and sent to Ontario where we have a strong body of provincial police, in addition to having a strong body of provincial police in Quebec, and similar bodies in the other eastern provinces. During the period of the war, when the Government had some drastic legislation to carry out in connection with military service and such business, I could understand that the Government would strengthen the arm of the law for the carrying out of such policies, and I would not begrudge the help that might, under such circumstances, be given by the Northwest Mounted Police to the federal authorities. But now that war is over and all such troubles are past, I do not see why we maintain at such a high cost, this body of fine young fellows at Ottawa. Their place is in the vast solitudes of the West, on the prairies, where they can maintain, as they have done heretofore, British law and order.
It is a source of surprise for many people that, now that peace is restored, the Government should not reduce expenditure. My hon. friend might, perhaps, say: Well, we are threatened with strikes, if not with riots resulting from strikes. Thank Heaven, in the East at least, we have passed through the ordeal of the last two years quite well. We had no strikes of such magnitude as that which took place, for instance, in Winnipeg -and I have the highest regard for the citizens of that city who took the law into their own hands when the days of danger came. But in out great industrial centres in the East-Toronto, Hamilton, London, even Ottaiwa, Montreal, Quebec, Sydney, Halifax, jSt. John-where hae there been lany necessity for maintaining law and order with the *aid o'f the Northwest Mounted Police? Under former conditions, before the Mounted Police were called to Ottawa, they did then-duty splendidly, and the provincial police and the municipal police were sufficient to cope with any difficulties which might arise

in the East. Moreover, in case of a strike of great magnitude, or extensive rioting, the militia organization can always be relied on, and a municipality in which a strike or a riot takes place is responsible for the expenditure involved in calling out the militia organization. In view of the large expenditure that we necessarily have to face and the taxation measures imposed toy this House in order to meet our war liabilities, I would ask my ho>n. friend if in his judgment-and I am sincere in appealing to hie better judgment -we should not decrease the expenditure on the Northwest Mounted Police. In the East where we have law and order, where we have cherished traditions, and where we have no large 'bodies of foreigners who have to be kept in check at times because they ignore the law and perhaps import ideas which are not those of the East, the Northwest Mounted Police is not needed. Not that I disparage the efficiency of the corps or the high sense of duty of the men. I have paid enough compliments to the Northwest Mounted Police to justify me in saying that they .are more needed in the far West where they are more likely to come in contact with and guide the foreigners who have gone out there. Once more on toehalf of the taxpayers of Canada, I appeal to my hon. friend to reduce substantially this expenditure. I do- not know that the Royal Northwest Mounted Police is needed in the East, but they are needed in the West, and I would welcome their return to the West. The centralizing of the Northwest Mounted Police at Ottawa involves a large expenditure which in my judgment is unnecessary.


Walter Davy Cowan: I nerver hear the Royal Northwest Mounted Police mentioned in this House but I feel that I ought to say something about them. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Maiisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) in two objections he has taken to the Northwest Mounted Police and their re-establishment. He Objects, first, on the ground of the expenditure involved. Let me say to him that I believe that the reestablishment of the Northwest Mounted Police on its present basis -was one of the most economical things this Government has ever done. No matter what we may think of the situation here in the East, we have to continue the Royal Northwest Mounted Police in order to police the Yukon. It is utterly impossible to do without them. We could, of course, increase the subsidy to the Yukon so as to enable them to employ a number of men as re-

inforcements, but that would be saddling an enormous expenditure on -a small population. Then there is the Athabasca country, which is now coming largely into population. There is already a stream of prospectors going into that oil country, and there is no question at all but what in a year or two the population of that territory will be substantially increased. We must maintain law and order there or abandon our attempt to uphold the traditions of the British Empire in this Dominion. It is therefore necessary for us to retain the Northwest Mounted Police. What does that mean? It means that headquarters will be at Ottawa as they always have been, because although iwe have had a headquarters at Regina, the city to which I am proud to belong, the Comptroller has always lived here, and Ottawa has been the real headquarters. So we must maintain the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, and a department here with a headquarters staff, no matter hOw the force is disposed1, and that accounts for the, major portion of the cost which has to be incurred. Having that force, and that department, and that cost, what could be more economical than that this Government should unite the force with the Dominion Police and thereby avoid duplication? We have had the Dominion Police in Eastern Canada. You 'people in Eastern Canada are not so desperately good that you do not need a policeman once in a while. We know you do. The only difference is that i>n the East the policemen go around as plain clothes detectives, because the people down there are a great deal more cunning in their crimes. Our redcoat in the West is a great deal more respected than any Dominion policeman in plain clothes in the East. As we have to maintain the Northwest Mounted Police why mot combine the two forces and avoid duplicate expense, and have the one force perform all the duties which the President of the Privy Council has indicated, making it a Dominion- force, with the name of Royal Canadian Mounted Police? To me it seems a real step in the direction of economy which had to be taken, and I am very ^lad the Government has taken it.


Mr. BUTTS:: I am going to ask the minister to re-comsider whether It is- well to extend the Mounted Police at least to the province of Nova Scotia. I have been magistrate, sometimes I have been called judge, of a town of between 9,000 and -10,000 people. We never had need of Mounted Police down there, and we have no- need of them

n<xw. I can remember distinctly sitting down one time and writing an .article for the press showing that from the 1st of January until the 8th of the following December there had never been one person in gaol in my town- of over 9,000 people.
I remember also stating in that article that I knew of 21 foreign languages that were spoken in that town.


Richard Smeaton White: There is no law against that.


Mr. NICHOLSON (Algoma):: Gaelic, too?


Robert Hamilton Butts: Yes, Gaelic and all the rest. Why do we want the Mounted Police down in our country? We do not want tbjm, and this House will be doing an injustice to Canada if they send them down there and pay them for nothing, for that is the way I regard lit. They are to. be sent down there, I am told, to watch .smugglers, to prevent them smuggling booze in from St. Pierre and Miquelon. I suppose there is not one single Royal Northwest Mounted policeman that ever saw a <sup!ful of salt water, and they are to be sent down, there to watch smugglers on the Atlantic seaboard. Childishness! I hope the minister will see the childishness of taking men from the plains of the West and sending them down to the breakers of the Atlantic. If you want Royal Northwest Mounted policemen down, there for that purpose, let us get them in Nova Scotia and train them. Do not send hayseeds from away across the plains down to Nova Scotia.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I have been orderly too
long. I have listened too long to that colony over there that has been charging us $15.75 a barrel for flour down in our country. Now, Sir, so far as the Northwest Mounted Police .are concerned, I am going to ask the minister to "forget it." I hope he will send none of them down into our part of the country for they will not conform to our police customs, and I say this as a magistrate of seventeen years' experience in a town of 10,000 people. I know whereof I speak.


An hon. MEMBER:: What town?


Robert Hamilton Butts: Sydney Mines. I say that it is dangerous to send them there. I speak for 73,000 people in Cape Breton, and I can say that they will not appreciate any such intrusion. If the Government sends the Mounted Police down there those men will not only be unappreciated but they will be regarded as intruders, and trouble will ensue. I want to remind my hon. friend
from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and my hon. friend from Maistonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), who were both members of the last Government, that we had a big strike on the part of the coal miners in Glace Bay, a town of some 17,000 or 18,000 people, and in .addition there was what might almost be called a sympathetic strike in the city of Sydney, where there are some 25,000 or
26.000	people. At the same time there existed in Sydney Mines all the sympathy that could be evinced in a sympathetic strike. So that altogether there were over
50.000	people involved in the disturbance. Da hon. gentlemen opposite remember what happened? Do they .remember Mr. E. M. Macdonald-what at the time was member .for Pictou county-in connection with this affair? If hon. gentlemen do not remember this thing they can go into the library and Hansard will show them what Mr. iMac-donald said, and they will find reference to Mr. Plummer of the Dominion Iron and Steel 'Company. I see my hon. friend from Maisonneuve smile; he will remember that. These are things which it is well that the country should reoall from time to time. When all these matters are recalled my horn, friends opposite will think, and no doubt they will realize that the country is thinking.


Richard Smeaton White: It is a new experience to find same one getting up in the House and making the statement that the Royal Northwest Mounted Police are not needed in Canada. However, I think there is a good deal to be said in regard to the remarks made by my hon. friend, (Mr. Butts), and although I am .always glad to see that the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Cowan)' always champions my old comrades of the Northwest Mounted Police, I cannot entirely endorse his remarks when he says that they iare the most economic force that has ever been organized for the maintenance of peace in any country. My hon. friend knows as wTell as I do that long ago, when their duties were more numerous and arduous than they are today, when they kept the peace and looked after the safety and welfare of the country, maintaining the observance of all the laws of the Criminal Code, there were far fewer men in the force than to-day and the expense was less than one-tenth of what we are asked to vote now. 1 can remember that up to the year 1914 their duties included the work that is now done provincially in the three western provinces as well as in the Yukon. They discharged their federal duties as well .as those duties

which are now discharged by the provincial police, and the work was done with about one-third fewer men and at one-tenth of the present cost. The question to-day is whether they are needed. We know' that so long as the Mounted Police are kept up in Canada under the present organization they will do their duty and do it well. But, as my hon. friend from (Maisonneuve has asked, is it necessary at this time to *add nearly $4,000,000 to the expense in connection with the maintenance of this organization while the duties of the men have been reduced by over one-half? That is an important question. Another thing about which not only I but, I think, all old members of the Mounted Police complain, is the fact that these men are now deputed to perform different duties from those which they should properly discharge, and instead of being maintained to enforce law and order, they are used as strikebreakers and put to other work which formerly they were never called upon to do. And .after the splendid record which they have made for themselves during the last forty years they are in great danger of losing caste and having the honour which they won by reason of long and meritorious service detracted from. I think it would have been a great deal better, when the Government decided to have a constabulary of this kind, had they disbanded the old Mounted Police and allowed them to retire with the credit they bad already established for themselves. The Government could then have organized a new force somewhat similar to the old one, so that there might be no danger, by reason of an amalgamation of veterans and new. men, that the record of the old Mounted Police might be in any way dimmed. I cannot see any use in retaining the old name, and there have been more harsh criticisms of the Mounted Police in the last two years than there were thirty-five or forty years ago. My hon. friend (Mr. Butts) says that he does not see any necessity for it, and I agree with him. If one-third of the number of men now in the Force could control the West and do the work of the provincial police, besides maintaining law and order and looking after the business of the Justice and other departments, I do not see the necessity for increasing the Force or removing it to the eastern part of the country, where, according to my hon. friend, it is not wanted. It is a great expense to the country and there is danger that the Force will perhaps lose some of the credit that it 
now -has all over this country for the good work that it has done in the past.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is one remark the hon, .gentleman has (made which I wish to deal with at once to prevent misapprehension. The hon. gentleman said that the Mounted Police had been used for strike work. That is not correct. The Mounted Police have not been used for strike work or as strike-breakers to my knowledge, which covers the last two and a half years, and I do not believe they were ever so used.


Richard Smeaton White: All I can say to the minister, then, is that they have been badly reported. I*t was, claimed that they broke the strike at Winnipeg.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am quite aware that
there are some who have made false statements in the press and on the platform in regard to the Mounted Police. I am glad my hon. friend has mentioned it because it gives me an opportunity of flatly contradicting the statement. They did not break the strike in Winnipeg. All they did was to suppress tbe riot and prevent most serious bloodshed and disturbance when called upon by the provincial police to do so.


Richard Smeaton White: They dispersed the mob.


Newton Wesley Rowell: They did disperse the mob.


Richard Smeaton White: That is
what I meant.


Newton Wesley Rowell: -and saved the situation in the city of Winnipeg. .Had it not been for the Mounted Police Force in the city of Vancouver during the troublesome months last year I do. not know that that city would have been as quiet and peaceable as it was during* that period. Our opinion is that the presence of the Mounted Police in Vancouver had a most beneficial effect, although they were not called upon to take any direct action in connection with the preservation of order. In addition to .what I have said of the work of the Mounted Police in Winnipeg, they did protect the post office officials who stayed at their posts discharging their duty when efforts were made to intimidate them and to prevent them from discharging their duty and carrying out their oath of fealty to this country. The Mounted Police afforded them protection at that time. The Mounted Police did not act as strike-breakers in any city.

Just one word in answer to my hon. friend from Cape Breton South and Richmond (Mr. Butts). If we always had as good judges or even presiding magistrates as my hon. friend makes we probably would not need any police in any por-
9 p.m. t-ion of the country. But that would be too much to expect. The fact is that we have no more federal police in the province of Nova Scotia now than we had in the past. The Dominion Police, with headquarters at Ottawa, have always had police in Nova Scotia, and the amalgamated force still have police there. The police in Nova Scotia are in the city of Halifax, where the military magazines and naval stores are, and this Government protects that property by Dominion Police.


Mr. STEVENS:: I do not rise to criticise in any way the items before the committee nor to criticise this Force. In fact, I am only too glad to' state that in m^ opinion the Government have done wisely in not only preserving but in extending the scope and influence of this magnificent body of police. I have watched them and their activities in Western Canada for the last twenty-five years, and I have no hesitancy in saying that there is no group of police officers which goes about its duty so coolly and so efficiently as does the Royal Northwest Mounted Police or the new force called the Royal Canadian Police. But I would remind the minister of the subject that I have brought to his attention, and the attention of the House on, I think, three different occasions, and that is the total inadequacy of the pensions to old members of the Force who retired some years ago and, indeed, in recent years. This veTy meagre pension, admitted by all, admitted in a former debate by the minister (Mr. Rowell) to be exceedingly small, has left a great many of these veterans in a hopeless and almost helpless position to-day. I mentioned this matter, as I have already said, in some detail on several occasions. I am going to remind the minister of the statement which he made on one occasion when I brought the question to the attention of the House, and I am going to claim from him now some effort to fulfil the assurance that he gave. I and other hon. members had spoken in regard to it, and on March 12 last the minister said:
I appreciate what the hon. member has said, and what other hon. members have said in support of his suggestion,-
That is regarding increased pensions to the veterans of the North West Mounted Police.
-and 1 am quite prepared to bring the matter to the attention of my colleagues and ask that it be further considered. Certain facts have been brought out this afternoon indicating conditions of greater hardship than had hitherto been presented to me in connection with this matter.
We have in this statement the admission of the minister that there was new information. new evidence of the need and fairness of this movement, and also the assurance that he would discuss it with his colleagues.
I took the opportunity, on two occasions or more since then, to bring the matter personally to the attention of the minister and to ask that he give it his attention and consideration. In addition to that there wai filed with the minister a petition or statement from the Northwest Mounted Police Veterans Association of 'Canada setting forth very clearly the hardships they were suffering and making a request for a very reasonable increase in their pension. I do not wish to go over all this ground again but I am going to again request the minister to give us, if possible, a definite assurance at this time that an increase in pension, which is expected and1 for which an assurance has already been given, may be granted in the near future.


Mr. KNOX:: I would like to add a few words to what has been said by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) with reference to the pensioners of the police force. I have been intimately in touch with these men for upwards of thirty years and I know that many of them, although they have borne the burden and heat of the day, have not had an opportunity of building up homes for themselves. To-day many of them have passed the stage in life where they can do very much work and the meagre pension which they are getting is insufficient to keep body and soul together. A number of these men are only getting fifty cents per day. Imagine a man trying to maintain himself on $15 a month in these days! At the time of the Northwest Rebellion these men did not get the land grant which was made to the military forces, and many of them think they were discriminated against in that respect. I do not wish to discuss the Force as it stands to-day further than to say that many people in the western provinces think that the old name should have been retained; but I db not- want to put myself on record in that respect; rather I am trying to secure something for these men whom I know to be deserving, and I heartily endorse what my hon. friend has said.


Richard Smeaton White: Is the
minister bringing in a special vote for pensions at some subsequent date, or are they included in this vote?


Mr.   HOWELL@: The pensions are included in this vote.


Richard Smeaton White: Then I might say a few
words in support of my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), who has taken the matter up on two or three previous occasions. Some years ago I communicated with the Government in connection with it, hut I never succeeded in accomplishing anything for the men concerned. Since the matter was brought before the .House some time ago 'by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre an exSergeant-Major of the Mounted Police called on me here for assistance. He had served twenty years in the Force, most of the time as a Sergeant-Major, and to-day he was trying to live on a pension of $18 a month. He was willing to fake any position, even that of door-keeper in this building, to supplement his pension and make enough to live on. Not only was he a member of the Northwest Mounted Police, .but he was also a veteran of the '85 Rebellion, and he also served as a transport driver in the South African war, rendering splendid service on all occasions, as his rank would denote; yet here is this man at 60 years of age trying to. live on $18 a month! His name is Desbarres, and he is at present employed by the Militia Department at Petawawa Camp, I believe, acting as telephone hoy or something of that sort. I think it is a shame that- a man who has given such good service to his country should in his old age be asked to live on such a mere pittance. That is only one case. I know of other men who have served just as faithfully, tout were not fortunate enough to reach the rank of Sergeant-Major, and they to-day are trying to live on $8 to $12 a month-men who have airived at the age of 60 or 70 years. We find those men all over the Territories. I know there are a good many of them in the constituency of my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Knox), and I know there are some in my own riding. In spite of all our attempts in this House we have never been able to secure for these men a decent pension or a bonus. To-day we are giving pensions as high as $700 a year to our returned soldiers, and in many cases these veterans are just as helpless as our disabled soldiers. I hope that the minister will take this into consideration and see if it is not

possible either to increase the pensions of these men or give them such a bonus that they will be no longer objects of charity. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, at the time of the Northwest Rebellion, when all the militiamen received scrip, although some of them never left the East, the Mounted Police were not similarly rewarded. They complain,, and quite justly, that although they have been perhaps more highly praised than any other military organization in Canada, when it comes down to getting something tangible for their services, or even fair play, they have never succeeded in securing the .same treatment as has been accorded to others serving in similar capacities. When the matter was brought up by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre on the Estimates last year, although it took the minister (Mr. Rowell) .some three hours to describe the glorious record o,f .the Force, it did not take him, I noticed, more than three minutes to assure the hon. member that his request for further assistance to the men could not possibly be met. It is mo wonder that these fine old veterans are tired of praise and have reached the conclusion that something that will keep them out of the poorhouse would be more to the purpose.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend in his
later remarks has evidently been drawing upon a very vivid imagination. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has correctly stated what took place when he brought the matter up a year ago. He has been indefatigable in presenting it to my attention and to the attention of the Govern-_ ment on behalf of these veterans of the Mounted Police, and other hon. members have also helped. I have taken occasion since the matter came up before to look into the question further, and I have come to the conclusion that there has been no sufficient ground why the Mounted Police should not have been treated in the same way as the members of the regular forces who fought in the Northwest. Requests have also been presented to the Government such as my hon. friend from Victoria, Alta. (Mr. White) has just referred to, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) and other hon. members on both sides of the House have presented the matter to me very earnestly. I may say that within the past two, weeks I asked the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to report on both these questions. I received his final report on Saturday, and

it is my intention to bring the whole matter before my colleagues when we come to consider the Supplementary Estimates for this session, to see if something cannot be done to remove what I think is an obvious hardship. I do not think I can say anything more than that to-night, because I have not yet had an opportunity of consulting my colleagues since I received the final report from the Commissioner.


Frank S. Cahill: While I have no
objection to an increase in the scale of pensions to ex-members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, I have very serious objection to continuing this large force in Eastern Canada. In 1910 the pay of this force was $283,000, as compared with $2,355,000 today, and the increase in maintenance is in about the same proportions. We are spending to-day for this force over $4,000,000 more than we did ten years ago, and the force really has less to do now than it had then. The other morning I saw some ninety-five of these men, mounted, pass my house on Metcalfe street. They are a fine body of men, but it occurred to me that they could be more usefully employed planting potatoes than in riding around in red coats in Ot, tawa, Montreal, or any of our eastern cities. There is absolutely no need for them; no person has asked for them. The minister and the Government may have thought that they would need them when they brought down this Budget, but I think they can do very well without them. The minister should consider saving this $4,000,000 and let the Mounted Police go back to the work they were intended to do when they were organized, and the work they did do so well. Instead of hunting for worms, let them get back to the fishing that they are required to do. The minister tells that they are hunting for stills now. Well, that is not a proper occupation for these men; you can get other men for that work. The ordinary militia of Canada has largely increased over what it was in 1913-14; they are just as well able to look afteT the affairs of the country now as they were then. This wild rioting, and striking, and unrest, is more in the minds of the Ministry than it is in the minds of the people. All the people are clamouring for is an election which will enable them to. get rid of the Ministry; if they could get rid of the Ministry they would be glad to get rid of the Mounted Police; we need neither very badly. You are wasting $4,000,000 of the people's money, placing a burden of taxation upon them that is absolutely unnecessary. I had
hoped that instead of conning back with this item this year the minister would have decreased this force and demobilized it as fast as possible, retaining a sufficient number of men to carry cm the work that the Mounted Police were intended for and in which they were so useful. Instead the Government is burdening the taxpayer with the cost of having these men ride around our eastern cities as a show proposition for the President of the Council. I hope that this item will not pass.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the Estimates for the Public Works Department there is an item of half a million dollars for Royal Canadian Mounted Police building. This item was held over the other evening because the Acting Minister of Public Works (Mr. J. D. Reid) was not familiar with the details. Perhaps my hon. friend would give us now some idea of what is intended in that expenditure.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I did not know that the item had stood over as my hon. friend states. Perhaps it would be better to take it up after we have finished with this one.


Mr. FIELDING:: Was there not at one time an arrangement between the Dominion and the Western Provincial Governments whereby the expenses of this force were divided?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There was such an arrangement, which continued from the formation of the western provinces until 1916 when, owing to the conditions then prevailing in the West, it was considered desirable that the arrangement should be terminated and that the force, which at that time was considerably depleted because of the number of its members who had gone overseas, should devote its whole time to the work of the Federal Government. At that time, which was before the United States entered the war, the patrolling of the international boundary and the exercising of certain supervision over elements in the alien population in Western Canada were considered of such importance that the agreements were terminated. Thereafter the Mounted Police ceased to exercise general jurisdiction in criminal matters and the western provinces then took over the enforcement of the criminal law.


William Stevens Fielding: I can see where the Government have experienced a difficulty in this matter, with which I have a measure of sympathy. There is no logical reason- if we are simply to be logical-why this force should exist any longer; yet I should

i
hate to accept that as a conclusion, because, it is a magnificent force; it has played a splendid part in the history of Canada. I regretted even to see its name qualified in the recent legislation. So long as it was doing service in our unsettled country there was no question as to the need of its services or the value of them. But with the development of the country and the creation of the provinces a new condition arose, and I imagine that the Government found themselves faced with this problem:	Why should we maintain a
police force for Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan and not for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia? I imagine it is out of that difficulty that we have had that new legislation whereby the force is now amalgamated with the Dominion Police. I can even imagine that the Government have tried in some way to keep the force in existence, and in that connection I am sentimental enough to dislike the idea of its being demobilized. Yet, with the creation of the provinces and with the development of Municipal and Provincial Governments who have all the resources of civilization at their command there is no longer any need for the Mounted Police. The Yukon might need it, perhaps, but there is hardly room for a very large force out there, and in the Northwest Territories I suppose there is not enough population to require very much attention along that line. I wish that we could find some useful service for the Mounted Police. I recall an incident which illustrates the value of the work which they performed in the early days in Canada. On one occasion when I was in England I met a very distinguished Englishman who had just returned from Canada, and I was asking what had impressed him most during the course of his visit. After a moment's thought he said:	" Well, what impressed
me most was the manner in which British law and British justice had been stamped on that new country in the far West,"- and that was the work of the Northwest Mounted Police. I do hope that the Government can find some proper work for this force to do. I do not like to see them wasting their time around Eastern Canada because it is not the work they were intended for. It is not the work that the men themselves like. They are doing it because they are asked to do it, not because they love it; not because it is consistent with their splendid history.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the items of other departments of Government the details are set out at much greater length
[Mr. Fielding.l
than they are in connection with this item. When we are asked to vote $4,000,000 I think we are entitled to more details of expenditure than are given here.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The item as brought
down is, I believe, in the same form as has prevailed for many years, probably from the time the force was established.


Jacques Bureau: But there has been an
increase of $3,000,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall be pleased to give my hon. friend the details. The item is made up as follows: Pay of force, $2,355,929.15; subsistence, $554,982.50; billetting, $206,875; forage and dog feed, $339,687.25.


Jacques Bureau: For dog feed-$339,000.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Forage and dog feed, that is, forage for the horses and food for the dogs required in the North country. Fuel and light, $116,782.50; clothing, $300,000; repairs and renewals, $144,200.


Jacques Bureau: Repairs and renewals of what?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Building-; of the Mounted Police in various parts of Canada.


Jacques Bureau: Are those buildings going to be done away with when we get the $500,000 for new buildings at Ottawa?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, this relates to other buildings entirely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think this must relate to clothing, because there is au item further down for building repairs.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I will first give the main items that go to make up this amount and then I will give the details of repairs and renewals. Horses, $78,540.


Jacques Bureau: Is that for the purchase of horses?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. My hon. friend is aware that the Mounted Police, with the exception of the Dominion Police in Ottawa, is a mounted force.


Jacques Bureau: I asked the question because the feed of the horses has been provided for, so that this item of $78,540 must be for remounts.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Purchase of remounts, yes. Ammunition, $5,420; stationery and drugs, $50,000; transport and freight, $250,000; building repairs, $34,050; contingencies, $55,000; criminal investigation branch, $177,600; compensation, $5,000. That is compensation to men injured in the service.


Jacques Bureau: It is very little.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is a sum out of which grants are made in case a man is injured in the service. This makes a total of $4,674,066.40. The item of repairs and renewals to which my hon. friend refers relates to repairs of autos, trucks, motor cycles, motor boats, barrack furniture, horse equipment, etc. I will give the details if my hon. friend wishes.


Frank S. Cahill: Building repairs?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. This is equipment. The building item is a separate one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How many autos?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Running expenses and upkeep of 28 autos and trucks. That includes trucks used for transport in connection with the force in the West.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Newton Wesley Rowell: I will give my hon. friend all the details if he wishes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 



[Stage Direction]
Estimates.-1920-1921.-Pay of Force.
1	Commissioner. . . .	. . . .$	5,000	003	Assistant Comm. 1	@	$2,800	2	@	2,400	7,600	O'O16	Superintendents 8	@	$2,200	1	&	2,000	1	@	1,900	6	@	1,800	32,300	00so	Inspectors .. ..10	@	$1,600	6	@	1,550	3	@	1,500	8	(ffi	1,460	1	@	1,400	8	©	1,250	28	@	1,200	$86,400	16 Inspectors $1,200 for 10 months from 1st June, '20	
16,000
102,400	00
3 Surgeons	2 & $2,200
.	1 @ 1,800
[Stage Direction]
 6,200 00
2	Veterinary Surg., 1 & $2,200
1 @ 1,800
[Stage Direction]
 4,000	00
3	Staff Officers at Headquarters © $300 p.	annum	900	0020 Acting	Assistant	Surgeons.	20,000	00
Special Northern allowance to 1 A/A/Surgeon @ $1.25
P-d	
456	251 Nurse at Headquarters Hospital,	Regina	
1,080	00
53 Staff Sergeants, 8 @ $3.00 p.d.
45 @	2.50 p.d.
49,822 50
17 Staff Sergeants, 10 months from 1st June, 19201, @
$2.50 per diem	
12,920	00112	Sergeants @ $2.25	per diem.	91,980	00
38 Sergeants, 10 months from
1st June, 1920, <@>
$2.25.	25,992 00
187 Corporals @ $2.00 per diem. 136,510 00 63 Corporals, 10 months from
1st June, '20, @ $2 p.d..	38,304 00
1,523 Constables @ $1.55 per diem. 861,637 26 382 Constables, 10 months from
1st June, '20, @	$156. ..	179,998	4025	Trumpeters @	$1.06 p.d...	9,581	25
100 Special Constables, averaging
$70 per month	 84,000	00
50 Detectives extra pay @ $1.00
per diem	 18,250	00
40 Rations etc., Allowance to Detectives:-
30 @ $50 and 10 @ $40
per month	 22,800: 00
200 Rations etc., Allowance to Dominion Police when absorbed :-20; Staff Sergeants @ $2.25 p.d. ; 20 Sergeants @ $2 p.d.; SO Constables,
10 years service @ $1.80 p.d.; SO Constables @ $1.60
p.d	 130,305 00
Working pay Non-commissioned Officers and Constable	 24,000 00
Special pay incr. (Bonus) :-
105 Offi. @ $1.25 p.d.; 165 Staff Sergeants and Sergeants @ 75c p.d. ;	56
Staff Sergeants and Sergeants, 10 months from 1st June. 1920, @ 75c p.d. ;
1,735 Corporals, Constables and Trump. @	50c	p.d.;
445 Corporals, Constables and Trumpeters, 10 months
from 1st June, 1920,	@
50c p.d	 489,892 50
[Stage Direction]
Recapitulation :-
Officers	$ 227,842 50
N.CO's, Constables, etc..." .. 2,128,086 66
[Stage Direction]
The special pay increase of $489,000 is a bonus which was allowed a year ago of 50 cents per man to the constable, 75 cents to the staff sergeant, and $1.25 to the officer, in view of the increased cost of living.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the minister reading what it is estimated *will be necessary for the coming year?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes. As a matter of fact, that was the estimate at the time these estimates were prepared but I am in hopes that we will not require that amount by, perhaps, a couple of hundred thousand dollars.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One of the items was twenty acting assistant surgeons. What is an acting assistant surgeon and why have twenty of them?

iMr. ROWELL:	Instead of appointing
regular surgeons, that is, whole-time men, to the force at all the posts, it has been found more economical to appoint what is called an Acting Assistant Surgeon; that is, a man who is not required to give his whole time, but is required to render all the medical service required for the force stationed in that particular locality. He is paid $1,000 for that service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does he need both titles, "Acting" and "Assistant"?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He is only acting. If
he were Assistant he would be a full-time officer, of full commissioned rank, with all that pertains thereto. He would be entitled to be put on the strength with full pay and allowances.
Mr. iLEMIEUX:	I wish very briefly to
emphasize the points made by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. I have the highest possible regard for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, and I would he very sorry indeed if the old members of that force were not looked after by the Government, but I have not been convinced by what the minister has stated this evening of the necessity of maintaining the corps in Eastern Canada at least. My genial friend from Regina (Mr. Cowan) is right when he states that in the far Atha-baska district and the Yukon there is urgent need for the presence of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. This only emphasizes what I stated earlier this evening, that the corps is not needed at all in Eastern Canada, but should be sent back to Western Canada in reduced numbers, and of course reducing the numbers would decrease materially the expenditure. I am not at all satisfied with the explanation given by the minister. He did not even promise Parliament that next year the expenditure would be decreased. We are asked to vote an item of over $4,000,000 under this head this year, without any assurance that the amount will-be materially decreased next year, although the people of this country are pressed so hard to-day by taxes and supertaxes in order to maintain our credit and meet the heavy financial commitments of the country. My hon. friend is not fair to the House. He does not justify this expenditure, at least as far as Eastern Canada is concerned. Four million dollars is a great deal of money. It could be applied, for instance, to the pension fund. Our soldiers are complaining bitterly that they have not received sufficient compensation from the Government for the services they rendered abroad. Their 
families are clamouring for an increase in the small pension which is being handed out to them. Every member of the House receives letters every day complaining of the small pensions, yet here we are asked to spend $4,000,000 and over, for practically no useful purpose as far as Eastern Canada is concerned. I repeat that in Western Canada, even in the organized provinces where the distances are so great, the presence of the corps is justified because law and order must be maintained at all costs, and of course, the force is also required in the unorganized districts. My hon. friend could cut this item in two if he were really imbued with the necessity of reducing expenditure, but the spirit does not move him. He asks us to pass this item of over $4,000,000 when there is such a crying need for reduction in expenditures, and he does not even state that next year he will materially decrease the amount. I am sorry the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) is not here. We all listened with rapt attention to his speech in delivering the annual Budget to the House, in which he distinctly promised that in view of the large taxation Bill which he was imposing on the Canadian people the expenditure of the Government would be reduced to the lowest possible point. If he were here, I should like to ask him what he has to say about this expenditure of $4,000,000.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I should like to ask the
minister in charge of these Estimates how the force is distributed at the present time, the numbers in the different provinces, and the increase in the force that has taken place since 1012 up to the present time. The minister has informed us that there are over 1,800 of the rank and file in the force. That is a considerable increase if the statement of expenditure in connection with the force given by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. White) is correct. I think it would be of interest to the House to know where the force is located, the numbers in each province, and the increase that has taken place say from 1912 up to the present time, and if there has been an increase, why the increase has been made. I also wish to bear testimony to the excellent character of the force. There are thousands of people in Ganada who have a vivid recollection of the manner in which the force maintained law and order in the western provinces in the early days. It has a standing and a record that is equalled by no similar force in the world, and it is with no idea of disparaging the force that I am asking for this information.

'Mr. ROWELL: I am very glad to answer both questions, namely, that asked by my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), and the question presented by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux). First, in reference to the question asked by my hon. friend from Marquette. I have not the figures before me for 1912, but I have the figures as on the 31st of May of the present year. At headquarters here in Ottawa there are ten officers and 55 of other ranks. That probably would not be greater, in fact, it is probably less, than the number at the headquarters at Regina plus the Dominion Police headquarters staff here and the staff of the Comptroller's office. There is no increase in the force in that respect. *So far as there is 'any change, it would (be a decrease. In the Yukon district there are three officers and 44 of other ranks. In British Columbia there are 9 officers and 274 of other ranks. That is wholly new. In 1912, the work of the force had not extended into British Columbia, and we had no men there at that time, but the work of the force has been extended to that province in the last couple of years. Alberta is divided into two districts. In Southern Alberta there are 10 officers and 293 of other ranks. In Northern Alberta, which extends right up to the Arctic ocean and includes all the posts up the Mackenzie river and two on the Arctic ocean-I may say in passing we have recently established a new post on the Arctic ocean at the mouth of the Copper Mine river, in the extreme north right at the heart of the continent-including all these we have in Northern Alberta 7 officers and 93 of other ranks. In Southern Saskatchewan, which includes Regina and the force there, we have 10 officers and 337 of other ranks.
In the Northern Saskatchewan district, which includes Prince Albert and the territory surrounding Hudson Bay we have 3 officers and 57 men. And it is not without interest to the House to know that we are about to establish a post at Port Burwell on the Hudson straits. Hon. members are no doubt aware that Canada claim's the Hudson Bay as territorial waters of the Dominion of Canada, and it is the intention of the Government to establish a post at the point I have mentioned where customs .revenues will be collected and sovereignty will be exercised in the name of the Government of Canada. In Manitoba, which, for the purposes of the administration of the police force, includes that portion of Western Ontario lying between Port Arthur and Winnipeg, we have 9 officers 204
and 239 men. In Western Ontario, that is to say Toronto and points west of Toronto, principally on the international boundary-Niagara Falls, Bridgeburg, Windsor, Sarnia, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury and Haileybury -we have 2 officers and 23 men. In the eastern district, that is here at Ottawa, performing any duties that are required, we have 8 officers and 295 men, including the Dominion Police stationed here. In the city of Montreal we have 2 officers and two other ranks. And in the Maritime Provinces, at Halifax, where the headquarters are situated, we have 1 officer and 28 men.


John Howard Sinclair: At what other points in Nova Scotia outside of Halifax are there men?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We have no men outside of the city of Halifax. There are one or two /men who mky visit other parte of ithe province as occasion imay require. That gives the present distribution of the force throughout the different provinces.
I may say a further word in answer to my hon. friend from Maisonneuve, who says that there is no occasion for a force in Eastern Canada and that they should go back West. At least in recent years, and I presume ever since Confederation, we have had a federal police force known as the Dominion Police, of which Sir Percy Sherwood was for many years the efficient head; and when that force was amalgamated with the Mounted Police it was composed of about 182 men. We have always had a force in Eastern Canada, and there is no object in having two federal police forces with independent heads and all the expense incidental to a dual administration. No matter what the strength of the force may be, it is a matter of prudence and economy to have the federal police forces under one head with one administrative staff. While it is true that the official staff, the commissioner and his assistants, had their headquarters at Regina, the financial affairs of the force were always administered from Ottawa. The direction came from Ottawa, and, as my hon. friend from Regina has pointed out, the change is not so substantial in that respect as my hon. friend suggests. My hon. friend says that the duties of the force are not as great as in the past. Many of the duties which the force performed in the past are now being performed, it is true, by the provincial police forces, but there is a reason, which I think I made clear in my opening statement, why the force should be maintained at a substantial strength. In addition to the specific duties enumerated.



I mentioned the fact that the Mounted Police constitute a reserve force to come to the assistance of the province, if they so desire, for the preservation of law and order. The force was increased when the war was over by the return of men from overseas who belonged to it. It was also increased by recruiting, and the Government, for a reason which I shall state to the committee, takes full responsibility for that increase. The members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force who returned to Canada were exceedingly anxious to be demobilized at the earliest possible date. They desired to get to their homes in Canada, and the Government felt that it was its duty to permit their demobilization and allow these men to return to their families. The militia force of Canada had been disintegrated by the natural and inevitable operations of the war. Men had enlisted and gone overseas, and the militia units had been practically disbanded by reason of the complete disorganization. But one of the primary obligations resting on a government in a country such as this, extending from Atlantic to Pacific and embracing such a wide area, is always to have in existence a force, not very great but adequate to maintain law and order in the land in any emergency that might arise. That is the duty of the Government; and at a time when we had no effective militia, because the militia could not be reorganized at once, and when we had no effective permanent force, whose reorganization must be a matter of time, the Government believed that it was its duty to utilize the Mounted Police, with all its splendid traditions, by recruiting it up to the strength which Parliament had authorized, in order that we might have in Canada a force at the disposal of the Governments concerned for the preservation of law and order throughout the country. Now, I think that so soon as the militia is definitely reorganized and put upon a sound basis and the permanent force is put in shape, so that we may return to pre-war conditions, the strength of the Mounted Police can be decreased.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When?


Mr.   HOWELL@: Whenever the condition
I have stated comes about.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You doubled the militia.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; my hon. friend is
mistaken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Last year Parliament authorized an increase in the permanent 
force. The militia throughout Canada, I am sorry to say, has not been fully reorganized. It takes time to build up what has fallen to pieces as a result of the war, but we shall have it reorganized in time. Provision has been made to this end, but so far there has not been any extensive reorganization, and until that time comes it is the duty of the Government to maintain an efficient force such as the Mounted Police as a reserve available in case of emergency for the preservation of law and order. My hon. friend asks when the amount of the vote will be decreased. I have not promised a decrease for next year though I hope it may be possible to come down next year with a smaller estimate, but I cannot give any guarantee that I shall be able to do so, because I do not know that the conditions to which I have alluded will be so changed within the year as to warrant a smaller vote. Certainly I look forward to a reduction within two years at the outside, and I hope that next year we shall be able to reduce the vote for the Mounted Police.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are
some figures here which I think it is important to bring to the attention of the committee. I have before me the Estimates for 1910-11 for the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. That is just ten years ago, and the amount voted then was $753,000. Today we have a vote of $4,674,000 in addition to $500,000 for the buildings that it is proposed to erect during the coming year. From $753,000 to over $5,000,000 is a tremendous increase.


Mr. PECK:: Do the figures include the
cost of the Dominion Police as well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was just
going to give that figure next. The amount required for the Dominion Police in 1910-11 was $55,000, which amount, added to the $753,000, makes a total of about $808,000 altogether for Dominion Police and NorthWest Mounted Police. Now the item jumps to over $5,000,000 including the $500,000 for the buildings to be put up this year. One can understand that during the war there may have been reasons for voting special sums for police and for increasing the police force, but I think the country should be definitely informed by the minister whether the Government contemplates increasing this force or very considerably reducing it. My hon. friend said a moment ago that he hopes in another year to bring down a de creased Estimate. That is hardly sufficient, because we shall be asked when we come to the Estimates of the Department of Pub-

lie Works to vote half a million for buildr ings this year. Unless the Dominion Police are to take the place of the police of the different provinces altogether, it is very questionable whether we should enter upon these large expenditures particularly at this time. If the Government contemplates that this force will gradually be a diminishing body as the country gets more settled and each province looks after the maintenance of law and order within its 'borders, it is very questionable whether we should create a big establishment at Ottawa as a centre for the Dominion Police at the cost of the [DOT]amount of money which we are being asked to vote.
There is another figure to which I would like to draw the attention of the Government. In 1910-11 the total amount asked for the Department of Militia and Defence, chargeable to income, was $6,876,700. That was all that the country was paying for Militia and Defence. Now we are being asked to vote for Mounted Police $4,678,000, or over two-thirds of what in 1910-11 was required for the whole militia of Canada. It looks as if the Government were trying to make a standing army out of this police force, only calling it police instead of militia or an army. It is under the direction of the Ministry, the Administration can use it in any way they like and send it here, there and everywhere as it suits the policy of the Government. This looks like a far-reaching addition to the public expenditure at a time when we ought to be economizing.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman the difference in the cost of all commodities at the date which he has mentioned as compared with the preseent time. At the time referred to by the leader of the Opposition the pay of the men was sixty cents a day; to-day a constable's pay is $2 a day. Will the hon. member say that the pay of the members of the force is too high. The cost of a constable's clothing, his preliminary outfit was $54 then; to-day it is $150. At that time the cost of the rations of the individual constable was 22 cents per day; to-day it is from 71 to 75 cents per day. At that time hay was bought for $7 or $8 per ton; this past year we have had to pay as high as $50 a ton, and the average was approximately $30 per ton last year. This enormous increase in the cost of everything accounts for the increased cost, of the administration of the force, and it applies to the increased number of the force. My hon. friend has said that I should give 204i
some more definite assurance to the committee as to reducing the strength of the force. I have explained that one reason for bringing the force up to the present authorized strength, or for greatly increasing its original authorized strength was that, pending the return to more normal conditions when we should have a real militia force in Canada the Government did feel it essential to have a force in Canada which would be available for the preservation of law and order. We will come to the day when the force will be reduced. There is no intention of keeping the force permanently up to the high figures authorized last year. The force will be brought back to more moderate dimensions so soon as the conditions that I have referred to have again become normal. With reference to the future of the force, here is the question with which we are faced. It is 10 p.m. essential to maintain a police force for certain purposes. It is essential to maintain it for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is necessary to have a federal police for certain important purposes that the federal police have served during all these years. In addition we must have some force as a reserve for the maintenance of law and order. We can choose between having a permanent military force of a certain strength which the Government might consider adequate to our needs in Canada, or of preserving this force at a substantial strength. I do not think any member of the House will say that we should have no force in Canada. We must have some force. The question is whether it is wiser to have a military force of a greater strength or to have a smaller military force and keep up the Mounted Police for the purposes of a reserve force as well as for performing the necessary police duties. My own personal view is that it is better to have a larger Mounted Police force and a smaller military force than we otherwise would require. Hon. members may not agree with that but that is my view and that is the view that the Government has acted upon. Another Government might reach a different conclusion. It might consider it desirable to make this force a part of the permanent military force. We did at one time discuss that proposal but we came to the conclusion that the Mounted Police is a better force for preserving law and order than either the militia or the permanent force. With the splendid prestige they have the fact that they are in a community-the very fact that they are there-tends to preserve law and order

without thfir being called upon to exercise their functions as policemen.


Mr. VIEN:: The minister gives us his
reasons for the increase in the strength of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The first is the social unrest that exists in the country; the second is the disorganization of the Canadian Militia and the necessity of having some organized body to maintain law and order.; the third is the necessity of having an increased Mounted Police for service out West. I think that this information is not at all in accordance with the facts. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) stated that since the war the Canadian Militia had been disorganized. May I tell the House and the hon. minister that at no time in our history has there been such a considerable military force in this country as at present. We always had 25,000, 30,000 or even 50,000 men training during the whole period of the war and for several months thereafter. As soon as the war was over the then Minister of Militia (Mr. Mewbum) asked the House to vote an increase in the Permanent Force, and eighteen months ago the strength of that Force was raised from 5,000 to 10,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Thomas Vien: Hon. members say "No." I want those hon members to stand up and tell me what was the strength of the Permanent Force in 1914, and what it was when we increased it about eighteen months ago.


Arthur Meighen: We did not increase the Permanent Force; it was only the authorization that was increased. The Permanent Force to-day is not as much as 5,000 men.


Mr. CALDER:: 
Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman will see by a reference to the Militia List that the number of officers has been increased for a Force of at least 10,000 men, and in so far as the number of actual recruits is concerned, I take it for granted that it is the intention of the Government to bring the Permanent Force up to strength, otherwise 
they would not have asked the authority of Parliament for so doing.


Arthur Meighen: Oh,	no.


Thomas Vien: At any	rate,	the	amountasked from Parliament in these Estimates for the maintenance	of the	Permanent
Force is more than double what it was in 1914, and even if it was not actually carried out, it was surely the intention of the Government to increase it, since they asked authority for so doing. But even granting that the actual recruiting of the Permanent Force-


Arthur Meighen: Why does the hon. member assume that the Government intends going to the limit of its authority? That all depends on circumstances.


Thomas Vien: I assume-


Arthur Meighen: But why?


Thomas Vien: -that when the Government comes to Parliament asking for authority it is serious in so doing.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly.


Thomas Vien: And therefore it would not ask for authority which it does not intend to use.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly it might. It all depends on whether the circumstances require the authority to be used. It does not need to be used unless the circumstances demand it; they have not so far demanded it.


Thomas Vien: The ex-Minister of Militia
(Mr. Mewburn) when giving to this House the information required from him in asking authority to increase the Permanent Force, said-


Arthur Meighen: No, he did not.


Thomas Vien: Surely the hon. minister will not tell the House that the ex-Minister of Militia did not ask authority to increase the Permanent Force?


Arthur Meighen: Yes?


Thomas Vien: Well, that is what I am saying.


Arthur Meighen: I thought you said he did not.


Thomas Vien: And when the ex-minister
asked authority to increase the strength of the Permanent Force, he said he was bound to increase it on account of the men discharged from the Canadian Expeditionary Force, who would have to be taken on the strength of the Permanent Force.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so.


Thomas Vien: He said so I was present at the time.


Arthur Meighen: You misunderstood
him.


Thomas Vien: It was one of the explanations given by the ex-Minister of Militia to obtain authority to increase the strength of the Permanent Force.


Arthur Meighen: I think you misunderstood him.


Thomas Vien: The hon. gentleman takes it foir granted that I misunderstood the ex-Minister of Militia. I may take the 'same liberty and say that the hon. minister did not understand his former colleague.


Arthur Meighen: Well, just quote him.


Thomas Vien: At any rate, there was surely a purpose when the Government asked for such authority. The explanation given to the House was that it was necessary to [DOT] increase the strength of the permanent force.


Arthur Meighen: It might be necessary.


Thomas Vien: All right, if the hon. minister likes that form better. I fail to see why it is necessary to have in Ottawa 8 officers and 225 men of the Cainadian Mounted Police. The hon. minister (Mr. Rowell) says that in addition to the reason that the militia is disorganized, we must also provide assistance for the civil authorities when necessary. The hon. gentleman is aware that when any disturbance occurs the civil authority can call out any regiment of the active militia, and he is also aware that the civil -authority can call upon the permanent force to come to their assistance. Therefore, I completely fail to see what was the necessity of stationing in [DOT]Ottawa this detachment of the Mounted Police, and in addition building headquarters for the force at an expenditure of over $500,000. It seems to me that at this period of retrenchment and economy the -action of the ministry is in absolute contradiction of the statements made by the Minister of Finance. In the old provinces the matter of police has been left to the provincial authorities, it being one of the duties of Provincial Governments to maintain law and order and to have a provincial police force fox that purpose. I do not believe that the unrest which the hon. member described to the House has been manifested either in the Maritime Provinces, in Quebec, or in Ontario.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Except in by elections.


Thomas Vien: Maybe; but even in by-elections I think if only legal and proper methods were adopted there would be no necessity of organizing such a corps. Under normal conditions no federal mounted police force is necessary to maintain law and order in the older provinces; -and I think the minister completely failed to establish to the satisfaction otf this House that there is any urgent necessity for the organization of this force either in this city or in any other part of Ontario, or in the province of Quebec, or in the Maritime Provinces. The first retrenchment we could make would be that otf saving the $500,000 which is now -asked for a building for the Mounted Police in Ottawa. It would be easy also to economize at least -a million dollars in the reduction of the force to the extent of all officers and men now in service in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces. I for one will oppose the expenditure of $500,000 for a headquarters building in Ottawa and such amount as is asked for to maintain the force in the old provinces.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend is now askin-g for $4,674,066, whereas the expenditure during 1919, according to the public accounts, was only $719,142.73. I want to place myself on record as being opposed! to this very large increase. It is unjustifiable; so far as we can judge from the sentiment of hon.' members, no one wants this police in Eastern Canada. My hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Butts), who represents the most populous district in Eastern Nova Scotia, has put himself on record against the police operating in that province. The minister tells us there are twenty-one of these officers and men in Halifax. These men are not required in Halifax, and I think that is the sentiment in all the Maritime Provinces as well as in Ontario and Quebec. These police officers and men are forced on the people by the Government at a time when money is hard to get; taxes are being levied on the people to- meet an expenditure which is absolutely unnecessary. My hon. friend has repeated over and over again that these policemen are required for the purposes of law and order. But as I understand the constitution of this country it is the duty of the provinces, not of the Federal Government, to preserve law and order in the provinces. The Federal Government are assuming a duty that they do not require to assume; that the provinces are not asking them-to assume; that the provinces themselves .are well able to take care of. My hon. friend has said also that the cost of

maintaining the police has increased enormously dhring the last few years; that sixty cents was the daily pay of a policeman some years ago, and that the amount is now two dollars. Well, that is one reason why the force should not be increased. Why pay two dollars a day for policemen and all the expense of their maintenance if they are not needted? I repeat that this force is not required in Eastern Canada, and in all that the minister has told us tonight he has not justified the expenditure so far as that part of the country is concerned.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: The hon. member (Mr. Sinclair, Guysborough), and the hon. member who preceded him (Mr. Vien) made it quite clear, as the fact is, that the maintenance of law and order is a duty resting upon the Provincial Governments. But aid to the civil power is a responsibility which is laid upon the Federal Government, that aid taking the shape of the furnishing of armed forces of some sort. Hon. gentlemen opposite have said that in the event of internal disturbances of any kind it'would be the duty of the civil power to call upon the active militia or the permanent militia to render that aid which the civil power is entitled to expect from the Federal Government. Well, the war has resulted in complete disorganization of the active militia. The active militia was in due course drafted into the expeditionary force; the expeditionary force has been disbanded; there is no active militia in Canada to-day. There is not an organized unit in the active militia of more than one hundred men. There are not one hundred organized men in Ottawa to-day. The Federal Government, therefore, could not, if it had to depend on the active militia, respond to a claim for aid to the civil power. And notwithstanding the increase which has been authorized, the permanent militia is no stronger to-day than it was before the war. The responsibility is upon the Federal Government to respond with a force of some sort. It chooses to take this particular measure in order to he ready to respond to the demand which it is legally liable to respond to; hence this proposal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does not my hon. friend think that all the unrest in Canada has passed away and that we are now living under normal conditions? My hon. friend is a gallant soldier; he knows that many returned soldiers are anxious to get. from the Government a better pension. I have letters in my pocket even now, one received 
this evening from a gentleman who rendered most valuable service during the war. I will read one sentence from that letter to show that there are crying needs elsewhere to which the money of this country could be applied rather than to the maintenance of a force which, honourable though it may be, traditional though it may be, is not needed, at least in this section of the country. Many members have received letters worded like this:
Dear Mr. Lemiecx :
The call was given; our services sought, we answered and gave up everything; have suffered everything,-yes, sacrified our all, and now we have been left to suffer the tortures of hell through physical and financial exhaustion.
I shall not give the name, Mr. Chairman, but every member receives letters of this kind every day from returned soldiers, returned officers, from widows, from orphans.
Now, $4,000,000, or even $2,000,000, would go a long way towards helping those poor people who, as my correspondent says, have given their all for the flag, the King and the Empire. Yet, we are giving a picayune allowance to those returned soldiers and to the widows and orphans, and we are spending $4,000,000, for which my hon. friend cannot give a reasonable explanation and for the reduction of which expenditure he does not make any formal promise. We are called upon by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) to exert our best efforts to incite the Canadian taxpayers to accept the last Budget with the best possible grace. He promises the Canadian people that he will survey the various items of expenditure and that every item will be subjected to the most carelful pruning. Yet, iwith a little waving of the flag, my hon. friend tells the committee: We have to maintain law and order until normal conditions prevail. With all due respect to my hon. friend, I maintain that the period of unrest has passed and that Canada is living under normal conditions. In fact, this country is doing far better in that respect than most of the other countries which have passed through the -war. Really, it is most discouraging to stand by the Budget and by the Minister of Finance, in inviting the Canadian people to accept the heavy taxation Bills, and on the other hand to have another minister of the Crown spending, without any good cause, $4,000,000 for a useless force in Eastern Canada.


Thomas Vien: What is the average cost
per man for the maintenance of the Mounted Police?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Between $1,700 and


Thomas Vien: What is the total force in
Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is all included in
the statement which I have already given and put on Hansard, and my hon. friend can see it there. My hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair, Guys'borough) asks:	Why is the
amount so much higher than the expenditure for the year 1918-19? During the year 1918-19, approximately 1,000 of our Mounted Police were serving in the war, and the strength of the Force in Canada was reduced to its lowest point in recent years. I think it got down to about 300. The men who were serving overseas were paid as soldiers out of the moneys provided to pay our forces at the front, and, therefore, we did not have to provide the amount in this Estimate. The fact is that we are providing in this Estimate for a force at least four or five times as strong as the force that was maintained in Canada in 1918-19 out of this appropriation, not the total force, because so many men were overseas. The additional amount is due to the increased cost, higher pay and increased cost of subsistence since then. My hon. friend (Mr. Vien) states that I did not accurately represent the situation. I know the facts and I accurately represented them to the committee. The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Calder) and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) have told my hon. friend about the strength of the permanent force, and the former Minister of Militia (Mr. Mewburn) if he were in the House, would confirm the statement. While he took authority to increase the permanent force, if necessary, to 10,000, he believed it was in the national interest to bring the Mounted Police Force up to a reasonable strength rather than to in-[DOT] crease the permanent force as much as he was authorized to increase it. It was part of his recommendation that this force should be increased up to the strength authorized rather than that he should bring the permanent force to a much higher strength. He thought it was more in the interest of the country to have the police force strong than to have such a large permanent force.


Mr. DENIS:: I was much interested to see the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Vien) take the place of tire hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) when the latter sat down, but I should like
to hear what the minister has to say in reply to the hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If my hon. friend had been in the Chamber, he would have heard my reply. It is hardly right, as each new member comes into the Chamber, that I should be asked to repeat an explanation which has already been given more than once. We are anxious to get through with the business of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Thomas Vien: Some hon. members are calling "question." Will they be good enough to be a little patient until we are through with this? The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Griesbach) informed the committee that the militia had been disorganized and that it was very necessary to increase the strength of the Mounted Police so as to ensure the necessary help for the civil authorities in case a disturbance should occur. I might answer my hon. friend by stating that no disturbance has arisen since the war ceased, and it is almost an insult to the peaceful and law-abiding population of the older provinces to claim that there is .a great unrest and that, unless this constabulary force is maintained and increased in strength, some uprising will occur which will imperil law and order and peace in our country. Moreover, supposing a local disturbance should occur, the permanent force of Canada, which is at present, if we take the figures given by the Minister of the Interior, over 3,000 in strength is more than enough to maintain law and order in the older provinces of this Dominion. If we take the figures given by the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), if a Mounted Policeman costs to this country in round figures $1,800 per annum, the 300 men or more who are maintained in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, would cost this country $540,000 per annum. It would be good economy to cut this $540,000 item from the Estimates submitted to the committee as well :as the $500,000 item which is asked in order to build headquarters for this police force at Ottawa. I would, therefore, suggest to the minister that he reduce the strength right away by the number which is maintained in the older provinces and that he should also do away with the item of $540,000 which is asked for the building otf headquarters in Ottawa, thereby saving the country over $1,040,000 which could be applied elsewhere towards the reduction of our debt.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Buildings, J'oO'O.O'dO.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This item is in respect of buildings at Vancouver, and Ottawa. We have purchased a property in the city of Vancouver on Shaughnessy Heights, where the police are now stationed. There were not sufficient buildings on the ground for the full accommodation of the police and their horses, and we have to make provision for the erection of quarters for the officers and for the necessary stables. The estimated expenditure for the completion of the buildings at Vancouver is $98,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have tenders been invited?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The matter is in the
hands of the Public Works Department. They are proceeding in the usual way, but whether they have actually called for tenders or not I cannot say. The balance of the expenditure is for the quarters here in Ottawa. It will involve the erection of the necessary barracks for the men, an administration building, quarters for the officers and non-commissioned officers, and stables.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where are the men
quartered at present?


Newton Wesley Rowell: At Howiek Hall. The
balance or $400,000 is not an estimate of the exact cost of the Ottawa buildings because at the time we did not have a site available on which to erect the buildings, and therefore it was not possible for the Public Works Department to give us a detailed estimate of what the cost would be. Therefore, so far as the Ottawa buildings are concerned, it is a lump sum estimated at approximately $400,000. One naturally cannot say what the final expenditure will be until the places for the buildings have been finally settled upon and tenders called for, but that was the general estimate formed at the time as the probable cost of the buildings.


Thomas Vien: Therefore it is the intention of the Government to maintain permanently in Ottawa 225 mounted police?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is the intention of the Government to maintain a force here in Ottawa. Let me say that the Government has always had a force of federal police here. These they do not require to pro, vide barracks for; they have not done so in the past. Every government of this country has had a federal police force in Ottawa. When my hon. friends talk about not having a Dominion police force in Eastern Canada they are going directly contrary to [Mr. Vien. 1
the whole history and policy of governments in this country. Is there any government in the world that has not a police force of its own? This Government has always had a police force at Ottawa, under Sir Percy Sherwood of late years. It is the Government's intention for the time being to maintain here a force of approximately 160 mounted police. The figures I gave to which my hon. friend referred included the old Dominion police and the new men who have come in.


Thomas Vien: How many mounted policemen are there in Ottawa at present?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There are 160 men and 5 officers. That is the strength of the force at Howiek Hall.
. Mr. VIEN: Which was not maintained in Ottawa before?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Which was not maintained in Ottawa before. It is not the intention of the Government to maintain a portion of the permanent military force here. At least that is the present view. If the Government should ultimately decide not to have a squadron of the Mounted Police here, the buildings erected would be suitable for any portion of the Permanent Military Force that should be stationed here. The view of the Government is that there should be a company at least of the permanent military force or the Mounted Police here at the capital city. I do not know of any government that has not some force under the control of the federal authorities in proximity to the capital city. That is the reason why the Government decided on the erection of suitable accommodation for a force of 160 men.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has any site been obtained'?


John Flaws Reid: Are the officers' and the married men's quarters at Regina still occupied?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Regina is the training depot for Western Canada and there is a squadron at Regina with its officers. My information is that the officers' quarters there are occupied by the officers.
As to a site at Ottawa, there is a site which I think the Government can probably secure from the Canadian National Railways. That would not involve the purchase of property from private individuals. It is on the Rideau River past the Isolation Hospital.


Mr. COPP:: Is the purchase price included in the $400,000?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. At the time that figure was put in, it was considered we would probably be able to get suitable Government property on which to erect the buildings.	.


Mr. OOPP:: When was the site at Shaugh-nessy Heights, Vancouver, purchased?


Mr.   EOWELL@: The arrangement was made in November of last year, and the transaction was closed in the early part of the present year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What was the price paid?


Mr.   EOWELL@: It was $135,000 for fifteen acres of land with the buildings upon them, which accommodate 200 men.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we ought to have, an opportunity of asking the Minister of Public Works a few questions on this item before it carries. Questions have been asked with regard to the calling for tenders, for instance. This is really an item that belongs to the Public Works Department and it can only be voted in connection with these other items under the head of "Generally."
Item stands.
Progress reported.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
['We do not\nknow whether or not the Government will last to the end of the session, but the indications are that it might be as well to allow them a sixth in the meantime.']
Henry Lumley Drayton: Resolved, That a sum not exceeding $6S,-159,519.23, being one-sixth ol the amount of each item set forth in the Supplementary Estimates for the year ended 31st March, 1920, and the Main Estimates and Supplementary Estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1921, be granted to His Majesty for the years ending respectively the 31st March, 1920, and the 31st March, 1921.


The CHAIRMAN:: I must point out that this resolution must have the unanimous consent of the committee.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This resolution, Mr. Chairman, as appears on its face, is merely a repetition of a resolution already adopted, with the exception that some of the items in the Estimates have been adopted.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This request of the Government is just another evidence of the delay which Parliament has had to endure in consequence of the ministry not having its business in shape so that we
could meet earlier in the year and make progress. Rather strong exception was taken on this side when the Government asked somewhat earlier in the year for a sixth of the Estimates to be voted before Parliament had an opportunity of discussing the Estimates themselves. I think that 'the same exception might equally well be taken at the present time to granting any further advance to the Government, but I gather that if this amount were not advanced at this time it would only have the effect of considerably inconveniencing the Civil Service, not only the inside service but the service in different parts of the country. I presume that hon. members on this side of the House will acquiesce in permitting this amount to pass, but in saying this now I should like to point out to the Government, as I had occasion to do this afternoon when another item was under consideration, that this must not he regarded as a precedent for future years. Something was said, when the first advance was asked for, about there being precedents in these matters. Well. Sir, it has developed now from precedent into habit on the part of the Government to ask for these advances, and this is due largely to the fact that Parliament is called so late in the year. I was speaking a few minutes ago with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) as to the reason why the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier fixed the fiscal year as it did, and my hon. friend assures me that I was right when I said this afternoon that it was to enable Parliament to meet in November rather than away on in January or February. It gave time to the Auditor General to audit the accounts necessary for the Auditor General's Report, and the departments time to prepare their estimates. When Parliament met in November and proceeded with its business with despatch, the items required for public busines could for the most part be passed before we reached the end of the fiscal year. I want to say, not by way of threat but simply that hon. gentlemen opposite will understand the position of the Opposition, that if the Government of the day should by any possibility be in office next year we shall not be willing to make these advances. We shall expect the Government to call Parliament earlier than was done this year and to have public business sufficiently under way to enable the due control to be exercised over public expenditures which Parliament ought to have.
32X6


Jean-Joseph Denis: I can very -well appreciate the motives of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) hut I am very much afraid that the reasons he has given will not convince the Government, because I do not believe that they are open to conviction. I have discussed this matter with quite a number of gentlemen on both sides of the House and without exception they ail express the opinion that it is simply ridiculous to begin the session of Parliament towards spring and keep members here until the month of July. Yet the Government persists in this course, and they are so obdurate that I am afraid the leader of the Opposition has only spoken in vain in attempting to convert them.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am a new hand; I might be easily converted.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Well, so far as the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) is concerned the remarks of my leader may prove effective. But I know that the other ministers do not take this representation seriously. They are not here to please hon. members but rather to do as they see fit and call upon their supporters, whether those gentlemen agree with them or not, to support them upon the floor of the House. But I challenge any one to deny that ninety per cent of the members on the other side of the House are not satisfied with the course which the Government obstinately pursues in calling Parliament together when it does. Every hon. member believes that it is wrong and unfair to call the session at such a time that the House is kept sitting till July. Some members have to leave for their fields and others have to attend to their various businesses. 'Is there any reason why the session should not begin early in January? I see no reason at all why it should not. Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to call the session in the month of November, and he was wise in doing so, notwithstanding the fact that he was criticised for bringing members to Ottawa a few weeks before the New Year instead of after. There is no reason in the world why Parliament should not convene between the 10th and 15th January each year. We quite . understand that after the last general election, on account of the fact that the returns had to be brought from overseas under the law which was then in force, we had to wait until March. Consequently the Government were not to blame for beginning the session in March, 1918; it was the force of circumstances. But in the following year they had no reason to begin late. Last

year there was no reason to begin the session as late as it was begun and close it on the 7th of July. This year there was no reason again for calling the session so late. We are going into the month of July very soon. It is not fair to hon. members that the Government should use their strength to adopt such a procedure against the will of ninety per cent at least of members of the House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would like to have it understood that the Opposition in concurring in this resolution will still have the right to discuss all individual items.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Absolutely;
every single item remains the same as if the vote had not been passed.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING. Quite so. It does not take away from us the right to discuss any matter?


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Before the resolution is
passed can we get any assurance from the Government that next year the Government will not begin later than the month of January.


Michael Steele: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the resolution?


Jean-Joseph Denis: No, I oppose the motion until we get an answer from the Government.


Michael Steele: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the resolution?


Jean-Joseph Denis: No, I oppose the resolution until we receive an answer. This resolution cannot pass otherwise than by the unanimous consent of the House. My question is a pertinent and reasonable one and it should be answered.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite sure my hon. friend does not want to do anything that is unreasonable. I am also quite sure that he is aware that I cannot give any promise that will bind anybody. I am at one with my hon. friend in wishing for a more expeditious conduct of the business of the House and for a shorter session. Anything I can do that will shorten the session without in any way jeopardizing that full and free discussion and consideration which the different subjects we have to deal with demands, I shall be only too glad to do. After all, the great thing is to get our business through. I regret just as much as the hon. member the length of the time we think it necessary to remain here.

I am not blaming anybody, I am not excusing any one, I am simply saying that it is unfortunate that we have to again ask for another supplementary vote. The fact is we have done a good deal of work, although we have done some talking, too.. I entirely agree with my hon. friend that we should have shorter sessions and that members should be able to get away at an earlier date.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am not rising to oppose the motion, I will give my consent to it in a moment; but I want it to be well understood that my objection was not to the length of the session; the minister misunderstands me altogether. I said the session should be called earlier in the year, not later than January, and on this point I asked for an answer. No one but the Government is responsible. I know that the minister is acting in good faith and I excuse him from responsibility from the position we are in, but surely if the Government want to make some promise they can, without endangering their position, make some promise and say that next year the session will begin not later than the month of January.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope that next year the session will commence in the month of January.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Seeing that the minister is so well disposed, might I suggest that the bringing in of the Budget in the first month of the session would shorten the session?
Resolution reported.



[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Government shipbuilding programme-amount required for the construction of vessels in accordance with Government programme, $20,-

Henry Lumley Drayton: We are not taking a sixth of the whole, but we are taking just the items that have been passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is this the
usual form?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The House has already voted a certain number of items, and this is the formal concurrence in the Estimates which have been passed and recorded by the Clerk.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I
am not as familiar with the procedure as I might be on this particular point. I would like to know from the minister before this
concurrence is given if it has been the cus-t^frto include all the items that have been carried.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have been so informed. I am in exactly the same position as my hon. friend, but I am informed this is the proper practice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought that the minister would be content for the present with getting one-sixth of the votes. That is as much as he should ask for.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite content to take a sixth, but I am told by the officers that this is the proper way. As far as the Government is concerned what it wants to get is the necessary sixth io carry on. If the hon. gentleman thinks that the Estimates ought to be considered as a whole and should not be concurred in as reported I do not think we would have any great objection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We want to
accommodate the Government but I would ask that the minister take the sixth.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see no objection, but I do not pretend to know the technical rule. If we have a vote of one-sixth, that is all we want.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You want us to give the Government a sixth to carry on?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We do not
know whether or not the Government will last to the end of the session, but the indications are that it might be as well to allow them a sixth in the meantime.



[Stage Direction]
Objection having been taken to concurrence in these Items, the House went into Committee on Ways and Means, Mr. Steele in the Chair.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved:: 1.	Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1920, the sum of $3,175,199.81 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
2.	Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1921, the sum of $64,984,319.42' be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Resolutions agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 166 for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the fiscal years ending 31st March, 1920, and 31st March,
1921.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved that the House do again go into Committee of Supply.
Hon. W. . L. MACKENZIE KING (Prince): Does not my hon. friend think we have covered sufficient ground to-day? We have certainly voted a good deal of money.
Arthur Meighen: I have waited a long time for this happy moment, and I would not like it to pass now. If we can go into Supply and deal with the Soldiers' Land Settlement Estimates-which have already been before the House on two previous occasions, once for half a day and this afternoon for an hour-I will not ask the House to sit longer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the item?


Arthur Meighen: No. 275.
Motion agreed to and the House went again into Committee of Supply, Mr. Steele in the Chair.


Arthur Meighen: When the committee adjourned at six o'clock the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Ross) asked for certain particulars as to the fees paid to law firms in Ontario. I had explained that in Ontario the old system still prevailed of employing a firm of solicitors to report on titles, paying them according to a scale of fees fixed1 by the Department of Justice. The firm engaged in Ontario was Messrs. Jones and Leonard, and1 the total fees per title in respect of mortgages averaged about $14; in respect to purchases of land and subsequent loans thereon the fees averaged $31.70. I realize that on something over
1,000	loans the total is a very considerable sum, although it extends over a period of a couple of years. Nevertheless, Messrs. Jones & Leonard have on more than one occasion asked to be relieved of the work, claiming that it has not paid them to act for the board, and it has been only at the urgent request of the board that they have consented to continue. We hope, however,
[Sir Henry Drayton.!
to install in Ontario the same system as we have in force in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and, I think, in Nova Scotia,-a system of departmental legal branches, by means of which we have got through our legal work at an expense approximating less than a quarter of what it has cost us under the old system.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does the soldier or the Government pay that fee?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Do those figures contain the disbursements to the Registry Office and so forth? *


Arthur Meighen: No. In the first class of cases the disbursements are about $7 extra, and in t'he latter class of cases a little over $9 extra. The Government pays all the fees in respect to the search of title for the soldier.


Mr. CALDWELL:: In regard to the amendment introduced to the Soldiers' Settlement Act, which was given its first reading on the I5th of April, according to the old Act the soldier settlers did not make any payment on interest or capital account on their stock and equipment loans until the end of the third year. Do I understand that under the amendment they will now pay interest from the date of their loans?


Arthur Meighen: The hoard has power to exact that from the soldier settler who settles on improved land; but as respects the settler who brings new land under cultivation, he gets at least the equal of the two years, and a further concession in that his whole loan can be deferred for an extra year and no collection made upon it. That special advantage is given to the man who settles on unimproved land. But the board can, since the passage of the amendment, exact from the settler on improved land interest from the beginning, that is to say, there is no final remission of interest at all as respects that man, and though the board do not collect the interest at first, ultimately he may be called upon to pay the whole of it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will this be retroactive and apply to soldiers who have already been settled by the department?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all.


John Howard Sinclair: I suppose this is a suitable time for me to ask the minister what the views of the Government are with regard to the re-establishment of returned soldiers who are fishermen. The question was raised by me last year

and I think that some rather favourable expression of opinion was given by a member of the Government, but nothing has been done. In Eastern Canada especially a large number of our soldiers were recruited from followers of the fishing industry. When these men returned-


Michael Steele: This
question would be more appropriate if put when the Estimates of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment were under consideration. We are now considering the matter of soldiers' land settlement.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guystorough):: I think I can get an answer from the Government at this time, if the minister will permit me. It is well known that these men have not been given very much encouragement in the way of re-establishment. It does not take a great deal of money to re-establish a fisherman. I am told by men who are familiar with the expenditure required that something in the vicinity of $2,000 or $2,500 would be sufficient to equip a fisherman with a boat and all the nets and gear that he requires for his (business. These men are not suited to farm work; they cannot take advantage of the land settlement proposals; their business is on the sea. The fishermen are a very important part of our population in Eastern Canada, and I think that some consideration ought to be given to them. They turned out to be just as good soldiers as the men who wentjfrom the farms, and they should not be deprived of the advantage of assistance simply because they are fishermen and not farmers. Every reason that exists for re-establishing a farmer on the land exists for re-establishing a fisherman on the sea. They are both producers; they are equally important to the future of the country; and the Government should take just as much interest in the one class as in the other. True, fishermen are not so numerous as the fanners, but man to man [DOT]they are just as important. I would like to know what the views of the minister and of the Government are on this question. I am quite certain that the Government have considered the matter. '


Arthur Meighen: There is no question as to the merits of the fishermen who are returned soldiers and as to the desirability of assisting them to re-establish themselves ini their calling, if any practical means can be devised. So far the Government have launched upon a loaning system applicable only to those engaged in agricultural pursuits. That is not because those seeking to engage in agriculture
[Mr. Sinclair.j
are more deserving from the standpoint of the soldier than those seeking to engage in mechanics, or in fisheries, or in any other honourable pursuit; it is merely because a more practical method can be devised for assisting the first class than the latter; because more tangible and permanent security is obtained, better machinery is available and, as is generally admitted, agriculture is our basic industry. It may be pretty strongly argued that fisheries come next or very close to the next to agriculture, and that if any further branching out could be done it might well be in that direction. Consequently we have seen to it that the question of the admission of those desiring to go into fishing to the benefits of the soldier settlement scheme should be very carefully reviewed. I understand that the matter is now before the pensions and re-establishment committee of this House; that they have been and are receiving evidence and hearing the best opinion that can be heard on the subject. As that is the case and as the Government before deciding would like to hear their judgment in the matter, after full inquiry, I would not care to make any definite comitment at the present time. I would like to add this, though: that the board, though sympathetic toward the request of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne) who has urged upon us and upon the board the desirability of this venture, is naturally reluctant to go further at the present time, unless, of course, the demands in the public interest are overwhelming. The pressure upon the board for assistance in agriculture has been so great and is at the present moment at so high a point that they would not like to have the numbers multiplied any more than they can avoid. They are finding it difficult indeed properly to guard the public interest and keep their organization at such a degree of efficiency as will take care of so extreme and urgent a demand as now bears upon them and have regard at the same time to conserving the treasury of the country and the ultimate public interest when amounts so huge are involved. Nevertheless the Government awaits the report of that committee; we feel that Parliament cannot with advantage discuss the subject while that report is still outstanding.


John Howard Sinclair: I am
glad to know that the Government has an open mind on the question and that there is a chance of something being done. The minister is doubtful about the security the fishermen could give. I quite agree that the security of land is more stable; as some

old legal authority has said: "You cannot run away with an acre of land." That is. true, but if you insure a fisherman's boat and provide him with the necessary gear, the investment is a pretty safe one-safer, in my opinion than an investment on the security of an old, run-out farm. If the soldier fails on a country faTm and cannot make a living on it, the farm is impoverished, and in that respect the security in many parts of Canada is not very good. You would find quicker sale in the Maritime Provinces for a fisherman's boat, if it was kept in good order and insured against accident, than you would for such a farm as I have mentioned. Moreover, the fisherman can begin to produce much quicker than the farmer. Suppose you give a fisherman a boat to-day. The summer fishing is on now. The mackerel will be here in shoals in a few weeks; the haddock will come in November. The fisherman can begin to pay back in six months, if he is successful, as he would likely be in many cases. The farmer takes a couple of years to contribute anything at all, so that the returns would come much more quickly in the case of the fishermen, and with proper care and insurance there would not be much more risk than there is in the case of the farmer.


John Allister Currie: Is it not the case that
most of the fishermen in the Maritime Provinces still receive every spring a subsidy under the old Washington Treaty to help them with their equipment and nets? Does the hon. member wish to give them something in addition to that?


John Howard Sinclair: The
subsidy is not worth talking about; it is a mere trifle, and it belongs to the fishermen themselves. It does not come from the Government. The history of the subsidy is that many years ago a lawsuit was brought by the Dominion of Canada against the United States for treepassing on the inshore fisheries of the Maritime Provinces. I think the award given was $3,000,000, although I am not sure as to the amount. At all events this amount was placed to the credit of the fishing industry and the interest of that money which was secured to the fishermen by the lawsuit is paid in bounties each year. A fisherman with an ordinary fishing boat receives only between three and four dollars a year. The amount is not worth talking about, and besides it is theif own money.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What has this to do
with land settlement?
[iMr. Sinclair.]


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Mr. Steele: I think
the committee will make better progress if we confine the discussion to the resolution before the committee.


Thomas Vien: How many men are employed by the board for administration in the district of Sherbrooke?


Arthur Meighen: Eighteen.


Thomas Vien: And in Quebec city?


Arthur Meighen: Eleven.


Thomas Vien: How many loans were made in the district of Sherbrooke?


Arthur Meighen: The total number in
Quebec is 362; in the district of Sherbrooke, 297, and in Quebec city, 65.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister kindly give the same information for district No. 6, Halifax?


Arthur Meighen: There were 319 for
Halifax up to the 27th March last.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: How many men has
the minister employed in district No. 6?


Arthur Meighen: Twenty-two.


Thomas Vien: Does the minister not think that this staff could be reduced? My im. pression-and I say this not by way of criticism, but as a suggestion-is that the staff employed by the board in almost every city is too large and could be reduced without any loss of efficiency. ' I am informed, for instance, that in the district of Sherbrooke, eighteen men are employed who, for the eighteen months that they have been in service, have had to deal with 297 loans. The staff seems to be very large for such little business, and the same statement applies to a large number of other districts.
Another matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is this. In many instances the vendor of a property has made an agreement with the prospective purchaser by which the value has been enhanced so as to allow the soldier not to make any payment on account and even to make a profit by the transaction. I have been advised from a most reliable source that when a farm was offered for $5,000, the soldier had to pay 10 joer cent on $5,000, but he would go to the owner of the farm and say:	"Ask $6,000." In this way the
Government would advance $5,400 although the real purchase was only $5,000. In many instances speculation of that kind has occurred. I do not know what steps the Government could take to avoid that, but the

Government could surely find some way out of the difficulty in the future, and at the same time, they should reduce the staff in many districts.


Arthur Meighen: We are at the present
time reducing the staff in the province of Quebec, and particularly in Quebec city. The amount of business in Quebec city does not warrant a continuation on the present scale, and we are reducing the status of that office to the rank of an ordinary supervision office, wre are not making it a regular Soldier Settlement centre. As regards Sherbrooke, that cannot be done; there is considerable business at Sherbrooke, and such business as there is requires very close supervision. The staff has to deal not only with the 297 men who are settled, but with applications from many more. Just at the present time the 'number is higher than it will average generally, and a little later on the number will be reduced. We do not go in for keeping any staff beyond the absolute necessities of the time, and I do not think there can be found in any part of Canada a staff where the employees are not working on their tiptoes. That may he, perhaps, too strong as regards all the offices, but I do not think an office can be found where at least very satisfactory work is not being performed by all the staff.
As regards the hon. member's report that soldiers, in order to avoid the 10 per cent payment, have induced vendors to raise their prices, and, I presume, to give the soldiers fake receipts for the initial payments, thereby relieving them of that obligation, the Soldier Settlement Board and myself will be only too glad if the hon. member will furnish us with a single instance where that has been done. I am not saying this by way of challenge or by way of intimation that there has been no such case. When a board is dealing with 36,000 to 50,000 people, and is purchasing and lending money on 20,000 separate farms in every constituency in Canada, it would be only fatuous to contend that there could be no case where the ingenuity of the individual had not managed to beat out the board. I do not think there are many such cases.


Thomas Vien: Is there a sworn statement?


Arthur Meighen: We get statements
from every vendor. We make him tell us where he got the land, when he got it, what he paid for it, and he has to certify to the terms at which he is selling and to the bona fides of it. In any case where there is a complaint-there is one at the present
time. It has been heard before the Reestablishment Committee. We had in that very case an investigation going on before we had any report from any outside party at all. We had in that case, as we have in every case, a certificate from the man as to what he paid for the land and when he got it. I may say that in this particular case the vendor has managed to escape. I will consider it a service on the part of the hon. member if he will just give me a description of the land and the namte of the vendor in any case where a soldier has managed, or is reported to have managed to have got the best of the board in such a manner as that or in any other manner, and I will give him my undertaking that it will be traced to the bottom and fitting steps will be taken to right the matter. I may say that in every case where I have endeavoured to get to details I have not always been successful. They have usually remained between heaven and earth and have not been made known to the board.


Thomas Vien: What is the total number
of officers and men on the staff of the board?


Arthur Meighen: 1,321. On the 27th of March last the number was 1,321. It is 'about the same to-day.


John Howard Sinclair: That does not
agree with the statement made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell). Discussing this question on the 1st of June, in accounting for the very large increase that had been made in the Civil Service, he said:
There has been an increase of 1,257 in the Soldiers' Settlement Board, and it was absolutely essential that that board should be manned to carry on its important work. Does anybody question that? Then there were 6,296 appointed in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-Estab-Kshment, which is so essential for the re-establishment of our soldiers in civil life; and 275 on the staff of the Board of Pension Commissioners. Thus there was an aggregate increase in those four departments of 8,48'5.
Those figures are much largeT than the figures given by the minister.


Arthur Meighen: They are smaller. The President of the Privy Council gave 1,257 as the number added to the Soldiers' Settlement Board. The total number I gave was 1,321.


Alexander William Chisholm: That is an increase.


Arthur Meighen: It is an increase because the whole board has been created since that time mentioned by the hon.

member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair.) I must commend the President of the Privy Council for his usual accuracy in giving those figures.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Hoav many travelling inspectors are there?


Arthur Meighen: There are 190 on the
staff of supervisors.


Mr. POWER:: What becomes of free
grants of land made by Provincial Governments? For instance, in the province of Quebec, and I presume in the province of Ontario, soldiers are allowed to take out 100 or 160 acres from the Provincial Government. Are they in any way helped by the Soldier Settlement Board?


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, just the same as any other soldier settler. As soon as he has a proposition that appeals to the board as one that he can pay for, and at the same time make a living upon, whether he got the land by way of grant from a Provincial Government or in any other way, the board is ready to assist him just the same as any other settler. That principle applies as to Provincial Government assistance in every province of Canada.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But the title to these
lands obtained from the Provincial Governments is not vested in the soldier until he has fulfilled certain conditions, a residence of five years and certain payments, and so forth. Just what stand does the board take with reference to these cases?


Arthur Meighen: Of course, under our
Act we cannot assist any soldier by way of loan until we get a first mortgage on the lands. I understand that in the province of Quebec arrangements have not been come to yet by which the province agrees to turn over the title of the land to the board. Until they do that we cannot under our Act give any assistance to the soldier on that land, but just as soon as they will do it we are not only ready but anxious to assist the soldier on that land the same as on any other. But we annot do it until they turn over the title.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Suppose the soldier wants to settle on land in Abitibi, Metapedia, or any other part of the province. The province has already remitted the dues in the case of the soldier, which the ordinary settler has to pay. Of course, you cannot expect the province to say: We will give you a free grant of land. The soldier must fulfil certain conditions with regard to residence and duties. I think the minister and

the department ought to be able to evolve some scheme whereby these men who have obtained help from the Department of Colonization of the province could receive assistance from the board. That is true colonization, because the man is taking up new land. It is not like the settlement we are getting from the board now, where a poor farmer buys out a good one. Here is a man who wants to establish himself on the land and clear it in true pioneer fashion. This is the man we should help, but apparently we are not able to do so. Cannot the minister evolve a scheme for assisting that man?


Arthur Meighen: The minister has succeeded in evolving a scheme, but the Government of the province of Quebec has not succeeded in acquiescing.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: What is the minister's scheme?


Arthur Meighen: In the province of British Columbia, where the resources are owned by the province, the same question arises. After considerable difficulty we managed to make an arrangement, an arrangement that we are quite ready to make along similar lines with the province of Quebec, whereby the province turns the title of these grants, which they make subject to settlement duty, over to the board in order that the board may have the security which the Soldier Settlement Act compels it to have before it can give assistance; and the province leaves to the board the determination of the completion of the settlement duties. There is no other way in which it can be done. The Government of British Columbia has now acquiesced, I am informed, and we are therefore able to go ahead and give assistance to settlers on provincial homestead lands in that province. We will be only too glad to do the same in the province of Quebec, and I appeal to my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) to use his well-known vast influence with the Government of that province to bring them to the viewpoint of the Government of British Columbia, so that we can do for the soldiers of Quebec the same as we do for the soldiers of British Columbia.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: In order to use this influence I would like the minister to explain a little more fully. Suppose the soldier in the province of Quebec goes away at the end of two years, whereas the conditions require, say, a five-year settlement. I understand that the title to the land would then be vested in the Dominion, that the land would become Crown land.


Arthur Meighen: To the extent of our
claim, but I understand the province has the right to pay off the claim of the Dominion and have the land revert to the province.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That is hardly likely, because in no case would these lands be worth the amount which the board was willing to pay.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes, because our money has gone into the land.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: But the province would
hardly pay that money back to the Dominion. They have so much land that they want to settle that they would not pay $1,500 or $2,000 or $3,000 to get that land back.


Arthur Meighen: What does the hon. member think we should do? Lose the money?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Suppose the province refuses to pay the money, what happens?


Arthur Meighen: We have the land.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It is vested in the Crown.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Thomas Vien: How many men defaulted last year on the conditions^of their contract?


Arthur Meighen: Only 1.71 per cent of
the number of farmers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When this item was up before, the minister took occasion to say that there was no foundation for the charges made by the Great War Veterans' Association of Canada with reference to the administration of the Soldiers' Settlement Act, and in that connection he made what has been interpreted as an attack upon one of the officers of the Dominion Executive. There has been a good deal of comment in the press upon what was said by the minister at the time in reference to this officer, and I wondered whether the minister had anything to say in regard to the subject.


Arthur Meighen: The minister, being a lawyer, has such respect for cases that are sub judice that he would not venture to make further comment on it at the present time.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What salaries are paid the supervisors?


Arthur Meighen: From $1,500 to $2,400 according to grade. We have assistant supervisors and chief supervisors. The latter, who are the best and most experienced, go up to $2,400.


Arthur Bliss Copp: And expenses?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Has the board arrived at any decision with reference to the disposal of the Stewart farm near Quebec?


Arthur Meighen: That is a farm that has to do with the Civil Ee-establishment Department; we do not own it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I was under the impression that the Land Settlement Department was training men on that farm.


Arthur Meighen: That is not correct.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: Has anything been done to enable the returned men to take up irrigated land in Alberta? The minister will remember that on the occasion of his visit to southern' Alberta last year representations were made that assistance should be provided for soldiers to 'settle on irrigated land. And he will also remember that the Canadian Pacific railway had established a colony for soldiers on their irrigated section in southern Alberta, and it was meeting with success. I shall be glad if the minister will make a statement on the subjedt.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad to say that we have decided to go as far as, if indeed not further, than I intimated on the occasion of that visit. I was indeed impressed by visiting the irrigated farms of Alberta with the possibilities of farming there, and it appeared to me as wholly unjustifiable that we should adopt iany entirely negative attitude toward irrigated land, even though the prices were much in excess of ordinary land. We are prepared to assist, in accordance with the provisions of the Soldier Settlement Act, men who desire to settle upon irrigated land or upon irrigable land, on one condition, and that is certainty as to water supply. Just as soon as the board is satisfied, not that there is water available at the moment but that a [DOT]water supply is certain, and that the property is not merely an irrigable one but that provision is already made to 'bring a sure water supply to it, then we are ready to take the band of the soldier and help him settle on that land and afford him the assistance of the Soldier Settlement Act.	,


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Has any suggestion been made to the board that those undergoing training in agriculture should have their salaries or wages increased to the same amount as paid soldiers undergoing vocational training?

.1224


Arthur Meighen: No; we do not contemplate that. These are physically fit men whoi after training .are probably going to get something more substantial in the way of assistance from the State, and consequently we do not think that their scale of allowances should be as high as that which is accorded to disabled men who, after they undergo a period of training, do not receive this substantial assistance. We think that the present scale is fairly reasonable under the circumstances.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is the present scale based on the cost of living?


Arthur Meighen: It has relation to the cost of living.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Is it supposed to be sufficient to keep a man and his family during the period of training?


Arthur Meighen: It is not supposed to do that.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The man must have means of his own?
Mr. ME'IGHEN: No, but he must have energy of his own. For example, a single man who is put out to training, who is informed that he must go and learn farming, being hired with a farmer, does not get any assistance. He gets the help that the farmer gives him; he is supposed to earn his way when he is learning to be a fanner. The married man who is doing the same work gets $20 a month, and $6 for the first child and $5 for the others, not exceeding a certain total of, I think, $25. The married man gets that by way of supplementary assistance. Those receiving training in institutions get board and free training. The married men get $35 per month, $6 for the first child and $5 for each subsequent child. The single man gets $10 a month.


Thomas Vien: What is the length of the training period?


Arthur Meighen: We give a man three months. He does not get training in higher agriculture. He is simply taught the rudiments of farming, so that he may be some good when he gets on land. The agricultural college is intended to make a good farmer a better farmer, and the course of training that is given to the man who is put on the farm is intended to make a green farmer a real farmer. As to the man who works for a farmer in order to learn agriculture, he is usually given a month first at one of these training centres in order that he may be of some use when he is on

the land. After he spends his time on the land, usually nearly a year, he is then given his finishing course of two months; so that he gets a course of three months in all.
Resolutions reported.
On motion of Rt. Hon. Mr. Doherty the House adjourned at 12 midnight.
Tuesday, June 8, 1920.